(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Plans Sub-Committee No. 3, 01/05/2014 19:00

BROMLEY CIVIC CENTRE, STOCKWELL CLOSE, BROMLEY BRI 3UH

TELEPHONE: 020 8464 3333 CONTACT: Rosalind Upperton [email protected]

DIRECT LINE: 020 8313 4745 FAX: 020 8290 0608 DATE: 22 April 2014

To: Members of the PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3

Councillor Katy Boughey (Chairman) Councillor Douglas Auld (Vice-Chairman) Councillors Roxhannah Fawthrop, Peter Fookes, John Ince, Paul Lynch, Mrs Anne Manning, David McBride and Alexa Michael

A meeting of the Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 will be held at Bromley Civic Centre on THURSDAY 1 MAY 2014 AT 7.00 PM

MARK BOWEN Director of Corporate Services

Members of the public can speak at Plans Sub-Committee meetings on planning reports, contravention reports or tree preservation orders. To do so, you must have  already written to the Council expressing your view on the particular matter, and  indicated your wish to speak by contacting the Democratic Services team by no later than 10.00am on the working day before the date of the meeting.

These public contributions will be at the discretion of the Chairman. They will normally be limited to two speakers per proposal (one for and one against), each with three minutes to put their view

across.

To register to speak please telephone Democratic Services on 020 8313

4745 ------If you have further enquiries or need further information on the content of any of the applications being considered at this meeting, please contact our Planning Division on 020 8313 4956 or e-mail [email protected]

------Information on the outline decisions taken will usually be available on our website (see below) within a day of the meeting.

Copies of the documents referred to below can be obtained from www.bromley.gov.uk/meetings

A G E N D A

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 6 MARCH 2014 (Pages 1 - 14)

4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

SECTION 1 (Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

Report Page No. Ward No. Application Number and Address

NO REPORTS

SECTION 2 (Applications meriting special consideration)

Report Page No. Ward No. Application Number and Address 4.1 Cray Valley West 15 - 20 (13/04191/FULL6) - 42 Clarendon Way, Chislehurst.

4.2 Cray Valley West 21 - 26 (13/04193/FULL6) - 42 Clarendon Way, Chislehurst.

4.3 Plaistow and Sundridge 27 - 34 (13/04198/FULL1) - 49 Park Avenue, Bromley.

4.4 Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom 35 - 42 (14/00111/FULL1) - Coltswood, Stonehouse Road, Orpington.

4.5 Penge and Cator 43 - 48 (14/00164/FULL2) - First Floor Units 8 and 9 Abbey Trading Estate, Bell Green Lane, Sydenham East.

4.6 Cray Valley East 49 - 52 (14/00228/FULL6) - 34 Chelsfield Lane, Orpington.

4.7 Bickley 53 - 58 (14/00304/FULL6) - 5 Heath Park Drive, Bickley.

4.8 Chislehurst 59 - 68 (14/00518/FULL1) - Huntingfield, The Drive, Chislehurst.

4.9 Hayes and Coney Hall 69 - 74 (14/00523/FULL1) - 48 Cameron Road, Bromley.

4.10 Clock House 75 - 82 (14/00593/FULL1) - Land rear of 101 Mackenzie Road, Beckenham.

4.11 Bromley Town 83 - 86 (14/00666/FULL6) - 10 Havelock Road, Bromley.

4.12 Hayes and Coney Hall 87 - 92 (14/00684/FULL6) - 1 Hartfield Road, West Wickham.

4.13 Copers Cope 93 - 100 (14/00742/FULL1) - 47 Manor Road, Beckenham.

SECTION 3 (Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

Report Page No. Ward No. Application Number and Address 4.14 Shortlands 101 - 106 (13/03290/FULL6) - 90 Malmains Way, Beckenham.

4.15 Shortlands 107 - 114 (13/03395/FULL6) - 90 Malmains Way, Beckenham.

4.16 Chislehurst 115 - 120 (14/00040/FULL6) - Scathebury, Conservation Area 47 Holbrook Lane, Chislehurst,

4.17 Bickley 121 - 126 (14/00088/FULL6) - 8 Wessex Court, 15 Bickley Road, Bickley.

4.18 Bromley Common and Keston 127 - 130 (14/00293/FULL6) - 5 Lakes Road, Keston.

4.19 Petts Wood and Knoll 131 - 136 (14/00493/FULL1) - 52 Queensway, Petts Wood.

4.20 Hayes and Coney Hall 137 - 142 (14/00506/FULL6) - 14 Pondfield Road, Hayes.

4.21 Copers Cope 143 - 150 (14/00540/FULL1) - 22 Southend Road, Conservation Area Beckenham.

4.22 Petts Wood and Knoll 151 - 154 (14/00974/FULL6) - 1 Petts Wood Road, Petts Wood.

4.23 Orpington 155 - 158 (14/01110/FULL6) - 95 Kynaston Road, Orpington.

SECTION 4 (Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

Report Page No. Ward No. Application Number and Address 4.24 Mottingham and Chislehurst 159 - 164 (14/00102/VAR) - 192 Elmstead Lane, North Chislehurst.

4.25 Farnborough and Crofton 165 - 170 (14/00188/FULL6) - 1 Brickfield Farm Gardens, Orpington.

5 CONTRAVENTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES

Report Page No. Ward No. Application Number and Address 5.1 Plaistow and Sundridge 171 - 174 (DRR14/050) - Treesway, Lodge Road, Bromley.

6 TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

Report Page No. Ward No. Application Number and Address

NO REPORTS

7 MATTERS FOR INFORMATION:- ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED BY CHIEF PLANNER UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

NO REPORT

PART 2 AGENDA

8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) (VARIATION) ORDER 2006 AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

The Chairman to move that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

9 Items of Business Schedule 12A Description

EXEMPT MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6 MARCH 2014 (PAGES 175 - 176)

This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 3

PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3

Minutes of the meeting held at 7.00 pm on 6 March 2014

Present:

Councillor Katy Boughey (Chairman) Councillor Douglas Auld (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Nicholas Bennett J.P., Roxhannah Fawthrop, Peter Fookes, John Ince, Mrs Anne Manning, David McBride and Alexa Michael

Also Present:

Councillor Simon Fawthrop

31 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Paul Lynch and Councillor Nicholas Bennett J.P. attended as his substitute.

32 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Douglas Auld declared an interest in Items 4.14, (minute 34.14), and 4.15, (minute 34.15), as he lived near to the site; he left the Chamber for the debate and vote.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett J.P. declared an interest in Item 4.22, (minute 34.22), as the applicant was known to him through the Beckenham Conservative Association; he left the Chamber for the debate and vote.

Councillor Alexa Michael declared an interest in Item 4.22, (minute 34.22), as the applicant was known to her through the Beckenham Conservative Association.

33 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 9 JANUARY 2014

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2014 be confirmed.

34 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

SECTION 1 (Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

34.1 (13/4165/REG3) - Warren Road Primary School, CHELSFIELD AND PRATTS Warren Road, Orpington. BOTTOM

Page 1 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

Description of application – Detached timber framed classroom building.

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE CHIEF PLANNER.

SECTION 2 (Applications meriting special consideration)

34.2 (09/00889/FULL2) - Highams Hill Farm, Layhams DARWIN Road, Keston. Description of application – Change of use of 2 poultry sheds from agricultural to commercial/light industrial use (Classes B1, B2 and B8) Including elevational alterations.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:- “7. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans approved under this planning permission unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To enable the Council to consider any further changes to the buildings in the interests of the visual amenities and openness of the Green Belt and in accordance with Policies G1 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

34.3 (13/03355/VAR) - Orpington Sports Club, CHELSFIELD AND PRATTS Goddington Lane, Orpington. BOTTOM Description of application – Variation of condition 8 of permission reference 13/02314 to enable opening hours to be extended from 10:00 to 20:00 Monday - Friday; 10:00 to 22:00 on Saturdays; and 09:00 to 17:00 on Sundays and Bank holidays to 08:00 to 23:30 Monday - Thursday; 08:00 to 00:30 Friday and Saturdays; and 08:00 to 23:00 on Sundays.

It was reported that some landscaping had taken place. Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the following

Page 2 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

conditions:- “1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years, beginning with the date of this decision notice. REASON: Section 91, Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building shall be as set out in the planning application forms and/or drawings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area. 3. No structure, plant, equipment or machinery shall be placed erected or installed on or above the roof or on external walls without the prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area. 4. Details of the proposed slab levels of the building(s) and the existing site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area. 5. Before commencement of the use of the land or building hereby permitted parking spaces and/or garages and turning space shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter shall be kept available for such use and no permitted development whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking and re- enacting this Order) or not shall be carried out on the land or garages indicated or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the said land or garages. REASON: In order to comply with Policy T3 of the Unitary Development Plan and to avoid development without adequate parking or garage provision, which is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and would be detrimental to amenities and prejudicial to road safety. 6. Whilst the development hereby permitted is being

60 Page 3 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014 carried out, provision shall be made to accommodate operatives and construction vehicles off-loading, parking and turning within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such provision shall remain available for such uses to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority throughout the course of development. REASON: In the interests of pedestrian and vehicular safety and the amenities of the area and to accord with Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan. 7. The premises shall be used for a sport clubhouse and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class D2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the area. 8. Customers shall not be admitted to the premises before 08:00 hours and after 23:30 hours Monday to Thursday, or before 08:00 hours and after 00:30 hours on Fridays and Saturdays, or before 08:00 hours or after 23:00 hours on Sundays. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area. 9. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans approved under this planning permission unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area. 10. Only one of the planning applications granted under references 10/03255/13/02314/13/03355 shall be implemented at the site and the development undertaken shall remain in complete accordance with only one of the developments granted. REASON: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt.”

Page 4 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

34.4 (13/03887/FULL6) - Treesway, Lodge Road, PLAISTOW AND Bromley. SUNDRIDGE Description of application – Increase in roof height to include front dormer and elevational alterations, two storey rear, part one/two storey sides and first floor and single storey front extensions (Revision to planning reference 13/00074 to include additional rooflights to ground floor and second floor and alterations to garage roof design; alterations to widen front windows and corrected boundary details) RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.

The Chief Planner’s representative reported that two emails dated 24th December 2013 and 4th March 2014 had been received from the immediate neighbour and these had been circulated to the Sub-Committee Members. The neighbour had requested that the application be deferred to enable him to attend the meeting and that his objections be taken into account, if Members decided to determine the application.

It was acknowledged that development had been carried out beyond the granted planning permission 13/00074 and this retrospective planning application had been received. The Chief Planner’s representative reported a further variation in the development which was to be dealt with under separate application. Members were also advised that any boundary dispute was a civil matter and could not be taken into consideration.

Members having considered the report , material considerations and objections , RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner with an amendment to the third ground of refusal and an informative to read:- 3. The proposed revisions to the approved garage design would result in a bulky feature to this front extension and an undesirable feature in the street scene detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. INFORMATIVE: The Council has noted that the drawings accompanying the application do not accurately represent the southwest elevation, as built, to the extent that a door and window on the ground floor have not been formed and have been replaced by air conditioning units which are subject to a

62 Page 5 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

separate application.

IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED that a further report should be considered at a future meeting of Plans Sub-Committee to consider enforcement action.

34.5 (13/04003/FULL1) - Jason, Yester Road, CHISLEHURST Chislehurst. CONSERVATION AREA Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a three storey 8 bedroom detached dwelling with accommodation within the roofspace and associated landscaping.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members referred to two previous refused applications 12/01812 and 13/03112 that had been upheld on appeal and were disappointed they had been upheld on highways issues only. It was noted that Highways Division had no objection to the application. Members had concerns that as this application included ten bathrooms the future intention may be to convert the site to flats. The Legal Representative advised Members that if the application was refused there was a risk of costs if a future appeal was awarded against the Council. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:- 1. The proposed means of access to the site would be inadequate to meet the needs of the development in respect of provision of adequate visibility as such the proposal would be prejudicial to highway safety and contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan. 2. The proposed development would give rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of the adjoining residential dwellings thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

34.6 (13/04044/FULL1) - Webb Works, Queens Passage, CHISLEHURST Chislehurst. CONSERVATION AREA Description of application – Two storey front extension, first floor side extension, elevational alterations, installation of 6 rooflights, partial demolition and repair associated works to car park and change of use from class B1 to Class B1/D1.

Members having considered the report and

Page 6 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:- “6. The premises shall be used for B1(a) (office) and D1 (community meeting rooms)and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class  of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification). REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interests of the amenities of the area.”

34.7 (13/04170/FULL6) - 175 Oakdene Road, Orpington. CRAY VALLEY WEST Description of application – Two storey side and single storey rear extensions, front porch and elevational alterations.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:- “7. Details of a surface water drainage system (including storage facilities where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced and the approved system shall be completed before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, and permanently retained thereafter. REASON: To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy ER13 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

(Councillor John Ince wished his vote for deferral to be recorded.)

34.8 (13/04191/FULL6) - 42 Clarendon Way, CRAY VALLEY WEST Chislehurst. Description of application – Single storey rear extension and elevational alterations PART RETROSPECTIVE.

At Plans Sub-Committee 1 on 3 October 2013 permission was refused under reference 13/02626

64 Page 7 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

and the applicant had appealed against an enforcement notice. The Chief Planner’s representative advised Members they could determine this application whilst the appeal was in process. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration to, await the outcome of the appeal against enforcement action.

34.9 (13/04193/FULL6) - 42 Clarendon Way, CRAY VALLEY WEST Chislehurst. Description of application – Single storey rear extension and elevational alterations PART RETROSPECTIVE.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration to await the outcome of the appeal against enforcement action.

34.10 (14/00017/FULL6) - 46 Randolph Road, Bromley. BROMLEY COMMON AND KESTON Description of application – Part one/two storey side extension.

It was reported that further objections to the application had been received. Members having considered the report and objections RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

34.11 (14/00106/FULL6) - 5 Pickhurst Green, Hayes. HAYES AND CONEY HALL Description of application – Part one/two storey front/side/rear extension, formation of rear gable and creation of front porch.

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE CHIEF PLANNER.

SECTION 3 (Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

34.12 (13/03497/FULL3) - 41 Mottingham Road, MOTTINGHAM AND Mottingham.

Page 8 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

CHISLEHURST NORTH Description of application – Change of use of ground floor from retail (Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Class A5) with ventilation ductwork at rear.

Comments from Environmental Health were reported. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration to seek accurate elevational and sectional drawings to show the relationship of the rear ventilation system and ductwork to the first floor flat.

34.13 (13/03506/FULL1) - 2-4 Raleigh Road, Penge. PENGE AND CATOR Description of application – Four storey side extension to accommodate new entrance lobby and staircase, elevational alterations including front and side balconies and conversion of first and second floor from snooker club (sui generis) to form 6 two bedroom flats; construction of single storey roof extension to provide additional 2 x 2 bedroom flats with associated outdoor terraces. Alterations to ground floor wholesale unit to provide cycle storage; associated landscaping; bin store; provision of 6 car parking spaces; vehicular access; boundary enclosure and gates.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:- “13. Details of the means of privacy screening for the balcony(ies) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area.”

34.14 (13/03722/FULL1) - Gara Rise, Orchard Road, CHELSFIELD AND PRATTS Pratts Bottom. BOTTOM Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement part two/three storey detached dwelling incorporating integral garage.

66 Page 9 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Julian Grainger, regarding the height of the building and spatial standards were circulated and reported. It was also reported that a late representation had been received from the immediate neighbour advising that the Council’s planning application notification letter had not been received. Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration to check that all neighbours had received their notification letter and to clarify the building height in relation to existing and proposed development at the site and on neighbouring land.

34.15 (13/03791/FULL1) - Land adjacent to High Barbary, CHELSFIELD AND PRATTS Orchard Road, Pratts Bottom. BOTTOM Description of application – Detached two storey 5 bedroom dwelling with integral garage and land adjacent to High Barbary.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Julian Grainger, regarding the height and bulk of the building and spatial standards were circulated and reported. The Chief Planner’s representative reported that this application adjoined Gara Rise, Orchard Road, Pratts Bottom, being the item above (minute 34.14). Permission had previously been granted for a rear extension at Gara Rise under reference number 12/03232 but there was no guarantee that it would go ahead and he advised Members to consider the impact of the proposal on the existing dwelling. Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration for a further detailed report to consider the impact of the proposed development in “Gara Rise” in the event that the permission granted to extend “Gara Rise” is not implemented. Further clarification of the existing and proposed building heights for both “Gara Rise” and the “High Barbary” development was also requested.

34.16 (13/03912/FULL6) - 51 Woodland Way, Petts Wood. PETTS WOOD AND KNOLL Description of application – Part one/two storey side/rear extension and elevational alterations.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of

Page 10 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Simon Fawthrop were received at the meeting.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

34.17 (13/03920/FULL6) - High Ridge, Walden Road, CHISLEHURST Chislehurst. Description of application – Single storey side and rear extension incorporating enlargement of existing dwelling together with provision of swimming pool, plant room, gym, sauna.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting. It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 4 February 2014.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

34.18 (13/03929/FULL6) - 66 Woodland Way, West WEST WICKHAM Wickham. Description of application - Raised decking area, associated screening, planters and steps within rear garden.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting. It was reported that on page 139 of the Chief Planner’s report, the figure in brackets at the end of the third line from the bottom of the page should be amended to read, ‘(68)’. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

34.19 (13/04149/FULL6) - 21 Sandy Ridge, Chislehurst CHISLEHURST Description of application – Part one/two storey side and rear extension, part one/two storey side extension

68 Page 11 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

with front and rear dormer extensions, roof alterations incorporating front and rear dormer extensions.

34.20 (13/04196/FULL1) - Genden, Bickley Park Road, BICKLEY Bickley. Description of application – Detached part one/two storey 3 bedroom dwelling with vehicular access, 2 car parking spaces and front boundary wall and gates on land to the rear of Genden and fronting St. Georges Road.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

(A motion for ‘refusal’ was proposed and seconded and the vote was 4:4. The Chairman took her casting vote and voted for permission.)

34.21 (13/04253/FULL6) - 7 Greys Park Close, Keston. BROMLEY COMMON AND KESTON Description of application – Part one/two storey side/rear extension, single storey side, first floor side and single storey rear extensions, roof alterations to incorporate two front dormers, bay window to front and elevational alterations.

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE CHIEF PLANNER.

34.22 (14/00016/FULL6) - 19 Whitecroft Way, SHORTLANDS Beckenham. CONSERVATION AREA Description of application – Part one/two storey front/side/rear extension.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the deletion of condition 4 and two further conditions to read:-

Page 12 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

“5. Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed window(s) in the southern roofslope shall be obscure glazed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall subsequently be permanently retained as such. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties. 6. No windows or doors additional to those shown on the permitted drawing(s) shall at any time be inserted in the southern elevation(s) of the extension hereby permitted, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties.”

34.23 (14/00054/FULL6) - 10 Croydon Road, Keston. BROMLEY COMMON AND KESTON Description of application – Part one/two storey side/rear extension, two storey side extension and single storey front extension.

SECTION 4 (Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

34.24 (14/00042/FULL1) - Land adjacent to 27 Edward PLAISTOW AND Road, Bromley. SUNDRIDGE Description of application – Detached two storey six bedroom house with accommodation in roofspace, integral garage and associated vehicular access and car parking.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. It was reported that further objections to the application had been received together with additional correspondence from the applicant. It was also reported that Councillor Peter Morgan had no objection to the application. The applicant had filed an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, to include an application for costs, for

70 Page 13 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 6 March 2014

the previous refused planning application reference 13/03135FULL1. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

35 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) (VARIATION) ORDER 2006 AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

The Chairman moved that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business listed below as it was likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

36 (DRR14/0222) - Oakfield Centre, Oakfield Road, PENGE AND CATOR Penge.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that a course of action BE AGREED.

The Meeting ended at 9.40 pm

Chairman

Page 14 Agenda Item 4.1

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 13/04191/FULL6 Ward: Cray Valley West

Address : 42 Clarendon Way Chislehurst BR7 6RF

OS Grid Ref: E: 546016 N: 168603

Applicant : Mr I Sukevicius Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Single storey rear extension and elevational alterations PART RETROSPECTIVE

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds

Proposal

An Appeal has been lodged against the non-determination of the two current applications at this address. The reports were heard by Plans-Sub Committee 3 on 6th March 2014 and deferred to await the outcome of the current enforcement appeal. The enforcement appeals are still pending decision with the Planning Inspectorate. The reports are repeated below with a recommendation to contest the Appeal against non-determination:

This planning application seeks permission for a single storey extension that is set in from the boundary with No.40 as follows:

 single storey rear extension with rearward projection of 4.2m and height of 3m  the proposed extension continues level with the flank wall of the existing property (adjacent to No.40) for 1.5m, maintaining a side space to the boundary of 1m. The extension is then set in by a further 1.2m for the remaining 2.1m (approx.) of the extension  side and rear elevational alterations including alterations to the first floor rear windows

The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement.

Page 15 Members will note that application ref. 13/04193 for a similar single storey rear extension is also being considered on the Agenda. Application ref. 13/04193 seeks planning permission for a similar extension with a set in of approx. 1.2m from the existing flank elevation adjacent to No.44.

Location

Site relates to a two storey detached property located on south side of Clarendon Way. Detached properties of similar size but of varying design characterise the area.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 objections apply to both applications  re-iterating concerns from the appeal against enforcement notice  loss of outlook  loss of light  intrusion of privacy  changes do not alleviate impact to adjacent neighbours  misrepresentations made in the statement submitted with application  clear that the applicants recognise extension not acceptable as it stands  examples shown in the appendix not relevant  discrepancies in the plans - kitchen door opens outwards, no extractor fans shown and no indication of A/c unit  view of solid brick wall  photographs have been attached  unsatisfactory impact on neighbours  does not improve the situation to both sides

Full copies of the letters received are available on the file. Any further representations will be reported verbally at the meeting

Comments from Consultees

None.

Planning Considerations

The main policies relevant to this case are Policies HS (Residential Extensions) and BE1 (Design of new development) of the Unitary Development Plan), which relate to the design of residential extensions and development in general.

Planning History

The planning history is summarised as follows:

Page 16  12/03522- Part/one two storey rear extension and front porch. This application was refused and dismissed at appeal (although the front porch was allowed)

 12/03518 - Front boundary wall, piers, railings and sliding gates (maximum height of 2m) was refused for the following reason:

"The proposal, by virtue of its height and design, would be incongruous and detrimental to the visual amenities of the streetscene and therefore contrary to Policy BE1 and BE7 of the Unitary Development Plan."

 13/00155 - planning permission was refused and dismissed on appeal for the retrospective works at the site, including a single storey rear extension measuring 4.2m in depth, front entrance porch, and side and rear elevational alterations for the following reason:

"The single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive rearward projection, has a seriously detrimental impact on the visual amenities to No.40 Clarendon Way and the prospect which the occupants of this dwelling might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan."

Most recently, planning permission was refused and enforcement action authorised under ref. 13/02625 at Plans-Sub Committee 3rd October 2013 for the part retrospective works at the site. The application sought a lower roof height to that previously refused under ref. 13/00155. The application was refused as follows:

"The single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive rearward projection, has a seriously detrimental impact on the visual amenities to Nos. 40 and 44 Clarendon Way and the prospect which the occupants of these dwellings might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The Applicant is currently appealing the enforcement notice which is under consideration by the Planning Inspector. At the time of writing the report, the Planning Inspector's site visit is being awaited. A further update will be provided at the meeting.

Conclusions

Members considered this application at Plans-Sub Committee on 6th March 2014. Concerns were raised by Members regarding the impact of the proposal on the adjoining residents, in particular No.44 as this application retains the extension close to the boundary with this property.

The previous conclusion to Members is repeated as follows:

The main issues relating to the application are the impact the rear extension has on the character of the area and the amenity of the neighbouring properties 40 and 44 Clarendon Way.

Page 17 Members will be aware that there is a complex planning history at the site, which includes a single storey rear extension measuring 4.2m, being refused and dismissed at appeal (ref.13/00155). The recently refused application attempted to overcome the previous concerns raised by the Council and the Planning Inspector by reducing the overall height of the extension. The raised decking area that was also indicated on the previous plans had also been removed. The current application seeks to address the concerns raised by setting in part of the flank wall nearest to No.42 by 1.2m to reduce the impact on the neighbour at No.40. Members will need to consider whether these changes now warrant the granting of planning permission for amendments to the single storey extension constructed at the site.

The most recent application (ref. 13/02625) sought permission for amendments to the previously refused application (13/00155) which included a lower roof height, the removal of the decking and the obscure glazing of the end door panels. The planning history of the site has been summarised above and the previous refusal grounds and Planning Inspector's comments have been taken into account whilst assessing the current application. On this basis, the proposed changes in the current applications refs. 13/04191 and 13/04193) are considered adequate to address previous concerns.

In terms of No.44 to the east, the property follows a similar building line to the application site (the property benefits from a single storey rear extension) and the relationship between the two is better than with the residents at No.40. However, the key issues raised by the Inspector in the most recent appeal decision were the outlook and visual impact that the extension has on Nos. 40 and 44 and Members should take the impact on the adjoining residents into consideration.

In terms of overlooking, there would appear to be minimal impact given the removal of the raised decking. The Applicant has also indicated that once the bi- folding doors are fully open, the view would be restricted through the glass. It has also been stated by the Agent that the final panel of glass be obscure glazed should concerns remain.

To summarise, although the single storey rear extension would remain at the same depth of 4.2m as previously refused, given the proposed alteration to set in the extension from the boundary with No.40 and the existing relationship to the rear of No.44 it is considered that the impact upon the visual amenities of this neighbour is reduced to an acceptable degree. On balance, it is recommended that permission be granted.

Page 18 Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref(s) set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

Although the original Officer's report recommended that Members grant planning permission for this application, following the discussion at Plans-Sub Committee and the deferral of the application, it is recognised that Members continue to have concerns about the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property and that the suggested revisions have not alleviated these concerns. In view of this the following grounds of appeal are suggested should Members decide to contest the appeal.

RECOMMENDATION: RESOLVE TO CONTEST APPEAL

Grounds for contesting the Appeal are as follows:

1 The proposed single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive rearward projection, would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities to No.44 Clarendon Way and the prospect which the occupants of this dwelling might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 19 Application:13/04191/FULL6 Address: 42 Clarendon Way Chislehurst BR7 6RF

Proposal: Single storey rear extension and elevational alterations PART RETROSPECTIVE

n n F i

h Rosal w t a

r l

a 1

d 7 0 F 1 a 87.6m o Creswick r Segundo

8 B

F 8 y

a d

a 8 W 3

88.0m 6

1 3

2 17 4 W 9 172 F Crayhurst 170 168a 168

88.5m 164

2 1 9

88.3m F 1 F

158

86.5m 156

152

d 55 n U 79.5m El Sub Sta 59

Ward Bdy

7 9 CR 1

3 2 Sub Sta a F

3 2

8 3

C 3 R

2 4

W F

2 5

2 A 6 REN E DON U WAY N

A 4 6 2 E

N E 1 R S

O O

B L

C M

N 4 W 6 O 7

N 5 44 E R

L 38 C 2

1 9 9

CLA REN N 13 D O

ON 3

GRE 0 D 9 8 EN N E 8 R A L C RA VENS

BURY 21

ROAD 7 8

1 9 7

5 7

7 7 Posts

4 27

a 4 2

4 1

S 1

1 O

C S 35 R

2 E U 1 Q E

6 C 2

0 7 3

8 3 3 1

1 1 7 53

R 63 8

4 75 W I M 2 B 5 O R N 2 E A V

E K

N E U

E V

G 1

T 1:1,850

4 O

1 0

5 N

O S "This plan is pE rovided to identify the location of thePage site a n20d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.2

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 13/04193/FULL6 Ward: Cray Valley West

Address : 42 Clarendon Way Chislehurst BR7 6RF

OS Grid Ref: E: 546016 N: 168603

Applicant : Mr I Sukevicius Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Single storey rear extension and elevational alterations PART RETROSPECTIVE

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds

Proposal

This application seeks planning for single storey extension that is set in from the boundary with both adjoining properties as follows:

 single storey rear extension with rearward projection of 4.2m and height of 3m  the extension is proposed to be set in from the flank elevation of the property by 1.2m for the full length extension. A side space of 2.2m (approx.) is maintained between the flank elevation at the extension and the boundary with No.44  the rearward extension continues level with the flank wall of the existing property (adjacent to No.40) for 1.5m, maintaining a side space to the boundary of 1m. The extension is then set in by a further 1.2m for the remaining 2.1m (approx) of the extension  side and rear elevational alterations including alterations to the first floor rear windows

Page 21 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement.

Members will note that application ref. 13/04191 for a similar single storey rear extension is also being considered on the Agenda. Application ref.13/04191 seeks planning permission for a similar extension without any set in adjacent to the boundary with No.44. The flank wall of the extension is in line with the existing flank wall of the property.

Location

Site relates to a two storey detached property located on south side of Clarendon Way. Detached properties of similar size but of varying design characterise the area.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 misrepresentations made in the statement submitted with application  changes to step back the extension from both boundaries whilst not an ideal solution may be acceptable compromise (No.44)  reduction in width should be continued for entire length of the extension, not stepped as shown at present (No.40)  kitchen extractor and A/C unit should be repositioned to face southerly direction  objections apply to both applications  re-iterating concerns from the appeal against enforcement notice  loss of outlook  loss of light  intrusion of privacy  changes do not alleviate impact to adjacent neighbours  misrepresentations made in the statement submitted with application  clear that the applicants recognise extension not acceptable as it stands  examples shown in the appendix not relevant  discrepancies in the plans - kitchen door opens outwards, no extractor fans shown and no indication of A/c unit  view of solid brick wall  photographs have been attached  concerns about outbuilding in rear garden

Full copies of the letters received are available on the file. Any further representations will be reported verbally at the meeting

Comments from Consultees

None

Page 22 Planning Considerations

The main policies relevant to this case are Policies H8 (Residential Extensions) and BE1 (Design of new development) of the Unitary Development Plan), which relate to the design of residential extensions and development in general.

Planning History

The planning history is summarised as follows:

 12/03522- Part/one two storey rear extension and front porch. This application was refused and dismissed at appeal (although the front porch was allowed)

 12/03518 - Front boundary wall, piers, railings and sliding gates (maximum height of 2m) was refused for the following reason:

"The single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive rearward projection, has a seriously detrimental impact on the visual amenities of No.40 Clarendon Way and the prospect which the occupants of this dwelling might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan."

Most recently, planning permission was refused and enforcement action authorised under ref. 13/02625 at Plans-Sub Committee on 3rd October 2013 for the part retrospective works at the site. The application sought a lower roof height to previously refused under ref. 13/00155. The application was refused as follows:

"The single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive rearward projection, has a seriously detrimental impact on the visual amenities of Nos. 40 and 44 Clarendon Way and the prospect which the occupants of these dwellings might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan."

Conclusions

Members considered this application at Plans-Sub Committee on 6th March 2014. Concerns were raised by Members mainly regarding the impact of the proposal on the adjoining residents. However, Members took the view to defer both applications pending an update on the enforcement appeal. Following the decision by the

Page 23 Applicant to appeal against the non-determination of these applications, Members need to decide to decide whether they wish to contest them.

The previous conclusion to Members is repeated as follows:

The main issues relating to the application are the impact the rear extension has on the character of the area and the amenity of the neighbouring properties 40 and 44 Clarendon Way.

Members will be aware that there is a complex planning history at the site, which includes a single storey rear extension measuring 4.2m, being refused and dismissed at appeal (ref.13/00155). The recently refused application (ref. 13/02625) attempted to overcome the previous concerns raised by the Council and the Planning Inspector by reducing the overall height of the extension. The raised decking area that was indicated on the plans (ref.13/00155) had also been removed. The current application seeks to address the concerns raised by setting in both sides of the existing extension. It is proposed to step back part of the flank wall nearest to No.42 by 1.2m and the entire flank wall adjacent to No.44 by 1.2m to reduce the impact upon these neighbours. Members will need to consider whether these changes now warrant the granting of planning permission for amendments to the single storey extension constructed at the site.

The most recent application (ref. 13/02625) sought permission for amendments to the previously refused application (13/00155) which included a lower roof height, the removal of the decking and the obscure glazing of the end door panels. The planning history of the site has been summarised above and the previous refusal grounds and Planning Inspector's comments have been taken into account whilst assessing the current application. On this basis, the proposed changes in the current applications (refs. 13/04191 and 13/04193) are considered adequate to address previous concerns.

From visiting the application site, the orientation of the dwellings to the south suggests that there is unlikely to be an undue loss of light resulting from the single storey rear extension on the adjoining properties. No.40 is located to the west of the application site and is sited some 8m forward of No.42. This results in an existing poor relationship to the rear with No.40 presented with the flank of No.42. No. 40 benefits from a large open garden and southerly aspect that provides views across the garden from the large kitchen window and patio area. In terms of No.44 to the east, the property follows a similar building line to the application site (the property benefits from a single storey rear extension) and the relationship between the two is better than with the residents at No.40. However, the key issues raised by the Inspector in the most recent appeal decision were the outlook and visual impact that the extension has on Nos. 40 and 44 and Members should take the impact on the adjoining residents into consideration.

Page 24 To summarise, although the single storey rear extension would remain at the same depth of 4.2m as previously refused, given the proposed alterations to set in the extension from both boundaries, it is considered that the impact upon the visual amenities of both neighbours falls within acceptable levels. On balance, it is recommended that permission be granted.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref(s) set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

In view of the circumstances in this case including the most recent changes to the scheme as set out above, it is recommended that the Council should not contest the appeal.

RECOMMENDATION: RESOLVE NOT TO CONTEST APPEAL

Page 25 Application:13/04193/FULL6 Address: 42 Clarendon Way Chislehurst BR7 6RF

Proposal: Single storey rear extension and elevational alterations PART RETROSPECTIVE

n n F i

h Rosal w t a

r l

a 1

d 7 0 F 1 a 87.6m o Creswick r Segundo

8 B

F 8 y

a d

a 8 W 3

88.0m 6

1 3

2 17 4 W 9 172 F Crayhurst 170 168a 168

88.5m 164

2 1 9

88.3m F 1 F

158

86.5m 156

152

d 55 n U 79.5m El Sub Sta 59

Ward Bdy

7 9 CR 1

3 2 Sub Sta a F

3 2

8 3

C 3 R

2 4

W F

2 5

2 A 6 REN E DON U WAY N

A 4 6 2 E

N E 1 R S

O O

B L

C M

N 4 W 6 O 7

N 5 44 E R

L 38 C 2

1 9 9

CLA REN N 13 D O

ON 3

GRE 0 D 9 8 EN N E 8 R A L C RA VENS

BURY 21

ROAD 7 8

1 9 7

5 7

7 7 Posts

4 27

a 4 2

4 1

S 1

1 O

C S 35 R

2 E U 1 Q E

6 C 2

0 7 3

8 3 3 1

1 1 7 53

R 63 8

4 75 W I M 2 B 5 O R N 2 E A V

E K

N E U

E V

G 1

T 1:1,850

4 O

1 0

5 N

O S "This plan is pE rovided to identify the location of thePage site a n26d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.3

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 13/04198/FULL1 Ward: Plaistow And Sundridge

Address : 49 Park Avenue Bromley BR1 4EG

OS Grid Ref: E: 540131 N: 170593

Applicant : Mr D J Francis Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a part two/three storey building comprising 3 one bedroom and 6 two bedroom flats with associated parking.

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Green Chain Walk London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds

Proposal

This application proposes the demolition of a single dwelling house and the erection of a three storey block of nine flats, comprising 3 one bedroom and 6 two bedroom flats with associated parking to the front of the site.

The proposed block would allow 2m side space from the eastern boundary and c 2.166m to the western boundary. It proposes a staggered front and rear building line.

A total of 9 parking spaces are proposed to the front of the site, along with a landscape strip to the front boundary. A covered refuse store is proposed to the west boundary and covered cycle parking within the rear garden. The amenity area to the rear appears as a communal facility.

Six windows are shown to the east elevation facing No.51a; these are shown to serve en-suite facilities. Bay windows are proposed as part of the fenestration to the front elevation. Six windows are shown to the west elevation facing No.47; one to each floor will serve en-suite facilities and one to each floor will serve the kitchen area; obscure glazing is proposed to the lower half of the second floor flank kitchen area window. Juliet balconies are shown to the rear elevation.

Page 27 The design of the block offers staggered building lines and a slight stagger to the ridge line; bay window features are included to the front elevation.

Location

The site is a detached, two storey single family dwelling house located on the north side of Park Avenue, within a predominantly residential area. There is a nursing home immediately adjacent to the west and flat conversions to the east. Directly opposite the site, to the south, is residential and to the north of the site lay the rear gardens of properties in Quernmore Road and Quernmore Close.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and numerous representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 regrettable loss of existing house  extra cars will have negative impact on highway safety; fast traffic  parking - Commuter parking; pressure on parking space; Insufficient parking on site; no disabled parking; particular hazard given proximity to Quernmore Road & extra parking  out of character/impact on local amenity  over-densification  existing flats are from conversions and therefore the character of the Edwardian properties is retained  out of scale  bulk of development; dwarf adjacent property  restrict natural light to side access/overshadowing  additional noise and air pollution  larger footprint  overlooking/loss of privacy  precedent; this would also lead to reduction in diversity of plants and local wildlife if more flats were introduced in to the area  planning history  houses to rear are at a lower level and this was considered an important issue in previous planning appeals  has there been a change in planning policy?  devalue property  additional cars when school access opens  Deed of Mutual Covenant - only 1 house per 35ft of frontage  where is the provision for waste/bike store?  proximity of bin stores to adjoining property, located with potential for full sun , will be negative environmental and health risk  issues with refuse proposal  lack of security for properties to rear  impact on residents of adjacent nursing home whilst any works are undertaken  noise and disturbance from flats on elderly residents in nursing home

Page 28 A letter of objection has also been received from the Bromley Park Avenue and Quernmore Road Residents Association

Comments from Consultees

No significant trees are affected by the proposal and therefore no objections are raised in this respect.

Thames Water raise no objection with regard to sewerage or water infrastructure capacity ; informatives are suggested in the event of a planning permission.

No objections are raised in respect of safer neighbourhoods; conditions are suggested in the event of a planning permission

Environmental Health (Housing) offer comment on fire systems and ventilation to en-suite bathrooms but raise no objection.

The site is located in an area with a low PTAL rate of 2. Additional information was submitted in respect of the parking provision on site which has addressed concerns from a Highways point of view. The bicycle storage facility is considered acceptable.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the NPPF, the London Plan and the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Transport and Road Safety T18 Transport and Road Safety

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 Supplementary Planning Guidance 2

Planning History

The planning history of the site includes proposals under application refs. 05/03784 and 06/00980 to demolish the house in order to extend the adjacent nursing home. These applications were refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal, regarding issues such as overdevelopment and intensification of use by the Nursing Home.

More recent history includes permission for a two storey side extension, ref. 11/03069.

Conclusions

Page 29 The main issues relating to the application are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in relation to privacy, outlook, light, noise and disturbance and highway considerations.

Park Avenue is a wide, straight road with mature street trees and mostly single dwelling houses with attractive landscaped front garden areas. The site is situated between a nursing home and flat conversions but although these are no longer individual dwelling houses due to their converted nature do, to a degree, retain the appearance of individual dwellings.

No. 49 is a house of pleasant appearance but does not necessarily have any particular architectural merit. The scheme to redevelop the site with a block of flats proposes a staggered building line to address those of its respective neighbours. The height of the building would be between that of Nos. 47 and 51, noting that 51a is at much lower level, being a previous conversion.

The supporting statement purports that No. 47 is a substantial building, dominant within the street scene but on a smaller site than the application site. In support of the proposal it states that the replacement of No. 49 with a larger building will not be out of character within the road nor compromise the amenities of surrounding buildings.

Many of the local objections received raise concern in respect of the precedent that would be set if the principle of flats were allowed in this location. This does require careful consideration in respect of how the proposal will impact on the character of the area. Whilst it is recognised that new development should seek to optimise the potential of a site Policies BE1 and H7 of Bromley's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are concerned with the character and appearance of the area and require development to complement adjacent buildings, not detract from the street scene and expect that buildings and space about buildings are designed to a high quality. Paragraphs 56 and 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) place great importance on the design of the built environment including high quality design for individual buildings. As already noted Park Avenue offers an attractive, pleasant environment with mostly detached dwellings with landscaped front gardens and mature street trees. This particular arrangement with the nursing home to the west and the flat conversions to the east does not appear to be replicated elsewhere in the road and it is this setting which presents a particular circumstance to be taken into account with respect to this specific proposal.

Whilst the proposed building is of greater bulk than that existing the design approach in terms of its staggered building line, step in ridge height , use of gables and features such as the bay windows and fenestration detail is considered to result in a proposed development which would not appear unduly bulky within the street scene; minimum side spaces of 2m are allowed to each boundary.

Local objections are concerned with the difference in levels in the vicinity resulting in the properties to the rear being at a lower level than the application site. Appeal decisions (see above) for development across the site to extend the existing nursing home saw the Inspector opine that the proposed extensions would result in

Page 30 a structure that would appear incongruous with its surroundings and because of its size and elevated position would dominate the nearby dwellings. The current scheme does propose a large building; the use of staggered building lines, roof heights and side space to each boundary may help to address issues of domination and this requires careful consideration. The current scheme differs from the appeal scheme, not only in respect of use, but that it is a separate, stand-alone development rather than an extended development across two sites.

In terms of density, the supporting statement advises that the site has an area of 0.11 hectares, number of habitable rooms proposed at 24 with the resulting density of development at 218hr/ha. The London Plan indicates a guide of 150-250hr/ha for a PTAL rating 2 location. In terms of density it is noted that some of the room sizes are large and pose the potential for division.

The extent of parking area to the front does result in a large expanse of hard landscaping and will introduce a feature of multiple parking provision which is not characteristic of the vicinity. Attention to a landscape setting is therefore considered essential given the context of the street scene. Highways concerns were raised as the provision appeared tight on the site; additional information has been submitted (including swept path analysis) in relation to Highway concerns and it seems now that Highways are satisfied with the parking provision shown. Landscaping provision has been revised in order to accommodate the revisions to the parking layout; it has been minimised to the front and widened along the side boundary with No. 47. There is no landscape strip to the boundary with 51a. The extent of built development and associated hard landscaping leaves little room for an attractive landscape setting.

In terms of the impact of the development on neighbouring amenities neighbour concerns are raised in respect of overlooking, overshadowing and the impacts from the scale, bulk and height of the proposal.

Flank windows to the adjacent sites are noted; the impact from the proposed flank windows is unlikely to be significant enough to warrant a planning ground of refusal given their location and purpose and that the use of obscure glazing and opening details can be subject to planning condition.

The configuration of single storey extensions to the rear of the adjacent nursing home results in a particularly sensitive relationship to the proposed development but this is considered to be addressed by the use of staggered rear building line and greater separation to this element.

It is the case that the Juliet balconies to the rear elevation combined with the rear elevation set deeper into the site does increase the potential of overlooking of adjacent garden areas. It is accepted that there is a degree of overlooking that will exist in suburban areas such as this and it is for consideration as to whether the increased extent of overlooking is acceptable. Given the distances involved, the suburban setting and the oblique nature of the potential overlooking it may not be considered to be sufficiently detrimental to raise a planning ground of refusal in this respect.

Page 31 Planning Policy BE1 requires that development should be imaginative and attractive to look at and should complement the scale, form, layout and materials of adjacent buildings. Government guidance, and that contained within the London Plan, require Councils to maximise the best use of urban land where appropriate when considering new residential developments. Guidance also advises that development should be sought that allows existing buildings and structures that make a positive contribution to the character of a place to influence the future character of the area. It also states that development should have regard to the form, function, and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. In view of this and the matters discussed above it may be considered that on balance the principle of flatted accommodation in this particular instance may not be considered unacceptable.

If the principle of flats is considered acceptable in this location careful consideration must be given to the built form of the proposal. It is a large development which although, on balance, is considered to respect neighbouring amenities there is a requirement for it to relate well to the existing street scene. Whilst the parking issues have been addressed it is considered that there is insufficient space to create an attractive setting for the development, which is an over-riding characteristic of the street scene.

In the event of a planning permission it should be noted that the development will be CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) liable.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref(s) set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 21.02.2014 02.04.2014

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED

The reasons for refusal are:

1 The extent of proposed development would leave a deficiency in the provided amenity area resulting in an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the amount of site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces and would be out of character with the area contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 RDI25 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in

Page 32 the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

If you fail to follow the payment procedure, the collecting authority may impose surcharges on this liability, take enforcement action, serve a stop notice to prohibit further development on the site and/or take action to recover the debt.

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

Page 33 Application:13/04198/FULL1 Address: 49 Park Avenue Bromley BR1 4EG

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a part two/three storey building comprising 3 one bedroom and 6 two bedroom flats with associated parking.

3 1

2 1 5

PLAISTOW 3 9

1 7

5 QUERNMORE

C L

2 O

S a 4 1 2

E 5

D 2

50.3m R

O 3

U 8

Q 1

3 1 a

7 10

3 1

FENN CLOSE

0 1

52.4m 4

1 8

1 Nursing Home 51a 55 49 47 51

39a 43 45

LB 54.1m 54.7m

PARK AVENUE

a 6 6 5 5 6 2

5 0 a 5 0

3 8

f h

c o

c y

r r

a u

i 1:1,430

P h

i d

n "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site aE n34d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.4

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00111/FULL1 Ward: Chelsfield And Pratts Bottom

Address : Coltswood Stonehouse Road Orpington TN14 7HW

OS Grid Ref: E: 547417 N: 162423

Applicant : Mr Stephen Mesure Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Demolition of existing dwelling and detached garage and erection of a detached two storey four bedroom dwelling with accommodation in roof space and associated detached garage.

Key designations:

Area of Special Residential Character Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Open Space Deficiency

Proposal

The proposal consists of the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and the erection of a two storey four bedroom dwelling with a games room, store and bathroom within the loft space. A detached garage building is proposed to the north of the site.

Location

The site itself is accessed via a single lane, uphill access road that also provides access to 'White Croft' to the east. The western, northern and eastern boundaries of the site adjoin the properties in Orchard Road. The south and south east of the site are wooded and are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (Number 58) (TPO). St Martins, to the northern boundary, forms part of the Orchard Road Area of Special Residential Character. The site lies within a spacious area characterised by detached bungalows and two storey dwellings.

Comments from Local Residents

Page 35 Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 overlooking and loss of privacy - surrounding dwelling are on lower land levels and therefore will be overlooked by the new dwelling. Letters state a 3.5m land level difference to Padmere, Granthorne and St. Martins  impact on the character of the area - surrounding dwellings are mainly bungalows and the proposed dwelling will be a significant two storey structure  excessive bulk and scale - the proposal will replace a bungalow with a bulky and tall two storey dwelling that would be excessive for the site  harmful visual impact due to the siting of the house and its position on higher ground than its neighbours  loss of light and overshadowing  impact on the streetscene and visual amenities of the area

Comments from Consultees

No Thames Water objections are raised.

No technical highways objections are raised, subject to conditions.

No Environmental Health objections are raised subject to informatives.

No technical drainage comments have been made and no comments have been received from the Council's Tree Officer. Any further comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan

BE1 Design of New Development H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space H10 Areas of Special Residential Character T3 Parking T18 Road Safety NE7 Development And Trees

London Plan Policy 5.13 (Sustainable Drainage) London Plan Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential London Plan Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments

The Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing

The Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance is also a consideration.

Page 36 Planning History

None.

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area, the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties, the impact on trees and on highway safety.

The area comprises of a large number of bungalows, however there are several two storey dwellings in Orchard Road and Stonehouse Road, particularly St. Martins and Oak Cottage to the rear of the site. The principle of a two storey dwelling to replace the bungalow is not objected to, however it is noted that the site is on higher ground than the neighbouring properties and therefore this will result in some impact. The applicant has not been able to submit information on the differences in land levels between the application site and those around it as access has not been possible. The site is also adjoined by bungalows to the east, including Padmere (which has dormers within the roof space) and Ingleside to the east, and Granthorne to the north. The applicant has submitted a topographical survey of the site however no information concerning the surrounding land levels has been forthcoming.

The application has been submitted following a pre-application submission. Following the comments made by the Council, which included concerns over the siting of the proposed dwelling, the development has been sited further to the south of the site to provide a 13m rear garden to the north of the proposed dwelling. The dwelling provides an increased separation to the western boundary of 6.0-6.5m and a separation to the eastern boundary of 7.5m. The re-siting of the proposal provides a 26m separation to St. Martin to the north and 40m to Granthorne. To the east, Padmere is also sited approximately 35m away from the site of the proposed dwelling. In light of the alterations to the siting of the building, and the increase of separation to neighbouring properties, the proposal is considered to improve the relationship with neighbouring houses and would address the visual impact concerns raised at pre-application stage.

The separation provided to surrounding dwellings is considered suitable to prevent a harmful degree of overlooking to the dwellings to the rear, with the flank windows proposed to serve bathrooms, therefore amenities can be protected by the imposition of an obscure glazing condition. The rear windows may create some further overlooking to the rear garden of Granthorne, however the dwelling would be 13m from the rear boundary of the site and an obscure glazing condition to the proposed rear dormer along with a suitable landscaping condition may be considered suitable to prevent substantial harm.

The 13m rear garden provided is also considered suitable for a large family home, having been increased from 6m at pre-application stage. The roof will be 9m in height and this is comparable to other two storey dwellings in the locality such as St Martins on Orchard Road. The roof includes a large flat table-top area which

Page 37 keeps the overall height to a level that Members may consider acceptable. It is noted that the surrounding dwellings are sited on land that is stated within local representation letters as being 3.5m lower than the land level at Coltswood. It is accepted that this change in levels is not insignificant, however, on balance it is considered that the level of separation provided between the site and the neighbouring dwellings reduces overlooking and visual impact to a suitable level in this case.

The proposed garage will be tall at 4.7m in height, however it will be sympathetically sited away from the highway and from neighbouring dwellings. Suitable boundary landscaping can be conditioned to supplement the existing screening in order to prevent a harmful visual impact. There is a detached outbuilding to the rear of Padmere to the east, however, the garage will be on higher ground than Padmere so will be visible. Despite this, the bulk will not be excessive as the roof will be hipped away from the boundary with Padmere and the impact is considered acceptable on balance.

The access road serves the existing dwelling and the adjoining property, however, this is a single lane uphill track with limited passing opportunities. The turning area within the site is adequate for the number of cars likely to be present and this is suitably demonstrated on the proposed site plan. The proposed detached double garage features an internal dimension of 5.8m by 5.8m, which falls within the minimum internal standards required under Policy T3 and Appendix II of the UDP. The garage is sited a suitable distance from the highway to prevent highway safety implications.

The application site is unusual in its shape, however, it is considered that the principle of its redevelopment for a two storey dwelling would not necessarily be inappropriate subject to the appropriate siting and design of any proposal. In this case, the dwelling would not dominate the site and would provide a suitable amenity area around it. The dwelling will sit comfortably on the plot without over- developing it. The dwelling will have a height of 9m however the roof will be fully hipped in a traditional architectural style and it is considered that the overall bulk of the dwelling would not be excessive.

The woodland to the south and south-west of the site are subject to a TPO and the application is accompanied by a tree survey. The survey states that there will be no loss of mature specimens and therefore standard conditions can be imposed.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the proposal is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area. The proposal would not impact on highway safety and would not impact on trees significantly. It is therefore recommended that Members grant planning permission.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref. 14/00111 set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Page 38 Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op. ACB01R Reason B01 4 ACB02 Trees - protective fencing ACB02R Reason B02 5 ACB03 Trees - no bonfires ACB03R Reason B03 6 ACB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains ACB04R Reason B04 7 ACB16 Trees - no excavation ACB16R Reason B16 8 ACC07 Materials as set out in application ACC07R Reason C07 9 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 10 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 11 ACH19 Refuse storage - implementation ACH19R Reason H19 12 ACH27 Arrangements for construction period ACH27R Reason H27 13 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29 14 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 15 ACI01 Restriction of all "pd" rights ACI03R Reason I03 16 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the first floor flank and second floor rear elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 17 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 18 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of the nearby residential properties. 19 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 If during works on site suspected contamination is encountered, Public Protection should be contacted immediately. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Authority for approval in writing by it or on its behalf.

Page 39 2 Before the use commences, the applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Public Protection regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

3 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

Page 40 Application:14/00111/FULL1 Address: Coltswood Stonehouse Road Orpington TN14 7HW

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and detached garage and erection of a detached two storey four bedroom dwelling with

E accommodationV in roof space and associated detached garage. I R D

S N I M A J N

E 1 B

T S

22 24 7 P 1 C

9 29

1 1 TU RNPI

KE D C

RIVE R

0 1

b 0

E a 0 th 1 el Te

rrace 6

C 5

C F

Carwinion U n d RH Saffron

Rough-Way Ivydene

Dengate The Hermitage

d n Deneside e

t t Beaumont Copperkins i

Apple Tree

e House i Upsdell

High Barbury y Beech Dell v Applegarth Fonthill t d

o s

M n

Nettledowne Chinley o

Trekaren C House Corran Yendol Fairways Thorndene Glen Bois o

Steepgreen C Whitehorn Slopes Burghley

Walmer Dawn LB Cottage

ORCHARD ROAD

Hilgay

St Martins Gable End Luxeuil Oak D Cottage A O

R Faircot Avoca Granthorne Verona D R

A C El Sub Sta H Winn-Holme Maitland C R

Hedgerows O Two Ways Bydawyl

Meadowlands Sunnybrae Penrhyn

Westmount

Padmere Wildernesse

Coltswood Kingshill Loxley Kildallow Ingleside Cottage

Orchard House Jaylins

Und Bramley Hedge

White Croft S TON Little EHO USE Lavender RO AD

Springfield Bow Wood Langdale Corner Cottage

l 9 v e

o 7 o d

11 Middlemarch

1 0 5 Pratt's Bottom

Rowellen Cobblecroft Fort Alphan 1

Chalkdown

n so nvi De

R Old Oak U Cottage N

C M B

o I o M Sherinside

u 1 D r o C n A A

o t C 2 O C P N t o t R o l a e C n C g a E s e s L S o t s a n O U a n s

t O n S 2 t

4 Squirrels H d E B E L d N B y D O O T B S d W y N R S I Edgehill N Green V G I E End W W

3 C e O ttag C o L se D Ro O

A S e V E Tre r E Pea N

tt 1 Co U Marston E

Turpins Ride

The Bull's Head Hotel

106.9m 5 0

1 1:2,210

Car Park "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n41d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.5

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00164/FULL2 Ward: Penge And Cator

Address : First Floor Units 8 And 9 Abbey Trading Estate Bell Green Lane Sydenham East London SE26 5TW

OS Grid Ref: E: 536541 N: 171341

Applicant : Mr K Black Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Change of use of first floor to friendly society office and meeting place (Sui Generis) with refurbishment to front elevation and parking.

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds

Proposal

Permission is sought for a change of use of first floor to mixed office (Class B1) and meeting room (Sui Generis) with refurbishment to front elevation and parking. The proposed opening hours are 3pm to 9pm Monday to Friday and 12pm to 3pm Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Location

The application site is a two storey industrial building located along the eastern side of Bell Green Lane and opposite Lucas Court, a block of residential flats which are within the London Borough of Lewisham. The proposed use would occupy vacant parts of the ground floor and the whole of the first floor.

The property has a grand art deco style entrance rising to three storeys forming a landmark feature within the Abbey Trading Estate. There are a number of other commercial uses still in operation within the ground floor of this building. The area is predominantly commercial towards the south with a number of industrial and business units which are occupied. Towards the north and west are residential flats and properties which lie within the adjoining London Borough of Lewisham. The site lies within a designated Business Area as defined by the Bromley Unitary Development Plan.

Page 43 Unrestricted on-street parking is available outside the application site and some parking is also available within the rear yard area. Bell Green Lane is connected to Stanton Way and Southend Lane (A2218) to the north and Sydenham Road (A212) via Kent House Road.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 It is not in-keeping with the main business uses the building is used for.

Comments from Consultees

Highways have raised no objection subject to conditions being attached to any permission.

Environmental Health have raised no objections.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development EMP4 Business Areas T1 Transport Demand T2 Assessment of Transport Effects T3 Parking T7 Cyclists

London Plan 2011

2.17 Strategic Industrial Locations 6.13 Parking 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes

The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) is also of relevance.

Planning History

Under planning application ref. 90/03309, permission was granted for the alteration and subdivision of Shaway House, Bell Green Lane SE26 to 3 B1 units together with the provision of parking spaces to the rear with access from Bell Green Lane.

Under planning application ref. 10/01788, permission was refused for Change of use of part of ground and whole of first floor from business (Class B1) to place of worship and Community Hall (Class D1). This application was dismissed at appeal on 14th March 2011. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would reduce the supply of land for industrial purposes and would therefore be contrary to Policy

Page 44 EMP4 as no detailed marketing information had been provided to demonstrate that there was no longer a need for the current use of the premises. The Inspector also concluded that given the size of the site and the amount of possible attendance as a result of the proposal there would be significant harm to existing parking and highway safety as there was a lack of parking provision.

Application ref. 12/01125 was refused for a change of use of part of the ground and whole of the first floor from business (B1) to a gymnasium (class D2). No appeal was submitted for this application. The reasons for refusal were:

1. The site is located in a Business Area in the Unitary Development Plan and in the absence of information to justify an exception to Policy, the proposal would result in the undesirable loss of business land and would be contrary to Policy EMP4 of the Plan which seeks to safeguard sufficient supply of land in the Borough for industrial purposes.

2. The proposed development would result in the increase of on-street parking and intensify the use of Bell Green Lane and in the absence of an appropriate transport statement to suggest otherwise, the proposal would be likely to give rise to an undesirable increase of on-street parking in nearby roads, and would also lead to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and general safety of traffic along these roads contrary to Policies T2, T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Application ref. 12/02318 granted planning permission for a change of use for part of the ground floor and the whole first floor from Class B1 to specialised martial arts teaching and gym (Class D1) together with elevational alterations.

A Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed change of use from Class D2 to a friendly society and meeting place (Sui Generis) was refused on the grounds that:

"There is no permitted change from Use Class D1 to Sui-Generis use under the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). The proposed change of use therefore requires planning permission"

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area, the business function of the designated business area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

The site is located within a designated Business Area as defined on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map, where Policy EMP4 states that permission will only be given to occupiers within use classes B1, B2 and B8. The area is therefore considered to be land with established light industrial and warehouse uses which the Council wishes to safeguard.

However, it is acknowledged that the building has been vacant for some time, and that application ref. 12/02318 granted permission for a Class D2 gym use with a

Page 45 demonstration of marketing of the site being undertaken and no suitable B1, B2 or B8 occupier being found. The proposed occupiers are proposing to install replacement Crittal windows which are considered to improve the grand and imposing appearance of this prominent building. Whilst this permission has not be implemented and as such the lawful use remains Class B1, the principal of a change of use away from a business use has been accepted.

It is noted that the Ministerial Statement 'Planning for Growth' (March 2011) states that in determining planning applications to consider the likely range of economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals and give appropriate weight to support economic recovering. This is echoed in paragraph 22 of the NPPF (April 2012) which states that local authorities should avoid the long term protection sites allocated for employment use. The London Plan does not define the Abbey Trading Estate as a strategic industrial location and in this instance it is considered that the proposals would bring back into use a prominent vacant unit.

With regards to the car parking and transport demand for the proposals, previous applications have been refused for failing to demonstrate that the use proposed would not result in excessive pressure for parking. The applicant states that there are currently 15 car parking spaces and no alterations are proposed to this provision. Comments received from the Council's Highways engineers raise no objection to the proposals, and as such it is considered that a refusal grounds on this basis would be unsubstantiated.

Given the proposed operating times of between 3pm to 9pm Monday to Friday and 12pm to 3pm Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays, it is not considered that the proposals would be harmful to the neighbouring residents. The nearest properties are located in Lucas Court which is located approximately 40m to the west.

Having had regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed change of use is acceptable in that it would not impact detrimentally on the character of the area or result in a loss of a business use within an established business area. It is also considered that the car parking provision proposed for such a use is sufficient. The proposed renovations to the building are considered acceptable.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 14/00164, 13/03343 and 12/02318, set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

Page 46 ACH03R Reason H03 5 ACH30 Travel Plan ACH30R Reason H30 6 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, bicycle parking (including covered storage facilities where appropriate) providing1 space per 50 staff and 1 space per 10 visitors, shall be provided at the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the bicycle parking/storage facilities shall be permanently retained thereafter. Reason: In order to comply with Policy T7 and Appendix II.7 of the Unitary Development Plan and in order to provide adequate bicycle parking facilities at the site in the interest of reducing reliance on private car transport 7 The uses hereby permitted shall not operate before 15:00 or after 21:00 Monday to Friday, or before 12:00 or after 15:00 Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of nearby residential property.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

Page 47 Application:14/00164/FULL2 Address: First Floor Units 8 And 9 Abbey Trading Estate Bell Green Lane Sydenham East London SE26 5TW Proposal: Change of use of first floor to friendly society office and meeting place (Sui Generis) with refurbishment to front elevation and parking.

31.9m

20 19 AD to D RO to FIEL 24 INCH 8 23 Sports Ground W El Sub Stas 7 to 2 to 1 12 4 11 3 6

2 9

Lucas t o

Court 5

t o

2 6 E N A L N E

E 1

t o

6 3 R G L

4 E

t B

o 3

8 34.6m El Sub Sta

GL Asly Const & LB Bdy

8 4

Lucas Court 6 4 4

Conveyor

5 5 5

9 7 5

6 5

5 Hopper 0 8 6

Abbey Trading Estate

2 to 23 170 Tank

2 5 4 9 Und

20 21 2 3 1

34.9m El Sub Sta El Sub Sta 8 3 8

19 Orcha rd Bus iness Centre

1:1,170

o t

18 6 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n48d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.6

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00228/FULL6 Ward: Cray Valley East

Address : 34 Chelsfield Lane Orpington BR5 4HQ

OS Grid Ref: E: 547607 N: 166838

Applicant : Mr Anthony Plichta Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer and two storey rear extension

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Local Distributor Roads

Proposal

 The proposal seeks permission for a two storey rear extension and roof alterations to incorporate a rear dormer extension.  The proposed rear extension will project in depth by 3.5 metres from the rear elevation of the host dwellinghouse at ground and first floor level, retaining a separation of 1 metre from the southern property boundary shared with the adjoining property and a separation of 1.3 metres between the flank elevation and the property boundary shared with the northern neighbouring property. This will form a kitchen/dining room at ground floor, and a fourth bedroom at first floor level. No windows are proposed in either flank elevation at first floor, and only one window is proposed in the northern elevation at ground floor.  The roof alterations will comprise a hipped gable end roof extension to the main roof of the host dwelling, and a rear dormer extension that will sit within the resulting rear roofslope.  New windows are proposed in the northern flank elevation of the existing host dwelling at ground and first floor level, and the roof enlargement will also have a window in the flank elevation.

Location

The application site located on the western side of Chelsfield Lane and hosts a two storey semi-detached dwellinghouse.

Page 49 Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.

Comments from Consultees

No internal consultations were considered necessary for this application.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 - General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Guidance 2 - Residential Design Guidance

Planning History

There is no planning history at the site.

Conclusions

The roof alterations will form an enlarged roof and will result in a hipped gable end feature, which will match the roof profile of the adjoining property. The proposed rear dormer will be smaller than the existing extension at the adjoining property. Therefore Members may consider that as the proposed roof extension will match the roof profile of the adjoining property, this element will bring the appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings in line and create a more symmetrical appearance to the pair of properties and on balance is therefore worthy of permission being granted for this element.

In terms of the rear dormer extension, this is similar to the existing dormer at the adjoining property, and is not an unfamiliar form of development across the Borough. The proposed rear dormer extension will not project above the ridge of the roof of the host dwellinghouse, therefore will not be visible from the streetscene, and will not impact upon the character of the area.

Looking at the two storey rear extension, this will be set away from the northern property boundary by 1.3 metres, and the southern property boundary (shared with the adjoining property) by 1 metre. The plans indicate that the provision of 1 metre separation between the flank elevation of the rear extension and the property boundary with Number 36 will still provide a 30 degree angle from the corner of the proposed extension to the window jam at ground and first floor levels at Number 36. However, Members may consider that a 1 metre separation between the flank elevation of the two storey rear extension and the property boundary shared with the adjoining property is insufficient.

Page 50 In conclusion, Members may find that the proposal as it currently stands, due to the rearward projection of a two storey rear extension at a projection of 3.5 metres and a minimal separation of only 1 metre to the shared property boundary, is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the outlook and prospect currently afforded to the amenities of the residents of the adjoining property and should therefore be refused.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref. 14/00228, set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED

The reasons for refusal are:

1 The proposed two storey rear extension would, by reason of its excessive rearward projection and minimal separation to the property boundary, have a detrimental effect on the daylighting and visual impact to the adjoining house and the prospect which the occupants of that dwelling might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan, SPG 1 and SPG 2.

Page 51 Application:14/00228/FULL6 Address: 34 Chelsfield Lane Orpington BR5 4HQ

Proposal: Roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer and two storey rear extension

TCB

2 8 1 5

1 4 1 2

9 2 4

15 6

0 1 5 El

5 0

Sub Sta a 1 60.8m

2 5

2 a

4 1 1 1

Y A W

K R A P

O 3 3

M 2

4 3

2 1

4 3 62.6m

13 B E

A M 2

IS 4

H 6

R 3 O

A 4 D 3

9 5 1 AY 3 KW 3 PAR NGO

MU 8 3

5 3

G O 6

4 P A C R H K E

2 5 W L S 29 A F Y I

E 4

5 0 1 L

0 5 L 6 A 3 N E

65.7m 4

6 1

2 0

2 8

7 1

5 5

9 2 6 1:1,290 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n52d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.7

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00304/FULL6 Ward: Bickley

Address : 5 Heath Park Drive Bickley Bromley BR1 2WQ

OS Grid Ref: E: 542147 N: 168970

Applicant : Mr Bhatia Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Part one/two storey rear extension

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds Open Space Deficiency

Proposal

 Part one/two storey rear extension  the ground floor extension will span the entire width of the dwelling (12.1m) and will have a rearward projection of 6.0m  at first floor level it would be stepped back from the ground floor extension measuring 4.0m in depth and would be set in from the western side of the building by approximately 4.2m.

Location

The application site consists of a detached dwellinghouse located in a residential area.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 does not specify distance of proposed second storey extension from west side of building

Page 53  extension and outbuilding will be a major overdevelopment of the site  two applications are mutually exclusive.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions

SPG1 General Design Principles SPG2 Residential Design Guidance

Planning History

Planning permission was granted in 2003 under ref. 03/00147 for a part one/two storey rear extension.

In 2013, planning permission was refused and dismissed at Appeal under ref. 13/00073 for a part one/two storey rear extension. The Appeal Inspector raised no issues with the two storey element, however, dismissed the appeal based on the rearward projection of the ground floor element (12.5m), concluding that the single storey element of the proposed extension would not respond well to the proportioning of the host dwelling and would be overbearing when viewed from No. 6 Heath Park Drive (13/00073 Appeal Decision).

A subsequent application for a part one/two storey rear extension with a full width first floor extension was refused under ref.13/03204 on the following grounds:

The proposed extension, by reason of its siting and excessive rear projection, would result in a significant impact on the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 6 Heath Park Drive by reason of visual impact and loss of outlook, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Most recently, a certificate of lawful development was granted for a detached swimming pool building at rear (ref. 13/03202).

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

In the previous application (ref. 13/03204) concerns were raised over the siting of the double storey extension adjacent to the flank boundary adjoining No.6, projecting well beyond its rear building line, and the impact this would have had on the outlook from No.6. The applicant has now amended the scheme by reducing

Page 54 the width of the first floor extension and setting it in from the western side of the building which would result in a more acceptable visual impact from No.6.

The depth of rearward projection remains the same, as does that of the ground floor extension, which would extend a further 2m to the rear of the two storey extension. While the 6 metre rearward projection proposed at ground floor is considered substantial, in the previous application (13/03204) this element was not considered to result in a harmful impact on the amenities of the occupiers of No.6. Members may therefore consider that by setting the first floor extension away from the western side of the building, the overall impact on the amenities of the occupiers of No.6 is now acceptable. This would be subject to a condition removing permitted development rights for any further extensions and outbuildings, in particular to prevent the creation of an overbearing rearward projection (by a combination of this proposal and permitted development) which the Inspector was concerned about when dismissing the previous appeal.

With regard to the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of No.4, this property is sited further to the rear on its plot than No. 5 and possesses no flank windows that would be affected by the proposal. Furthermore, no flank windows are proposed in the extension. Given the relationship of these two buildings, the impact on No.4 is therefore considered acceptable.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 03/00147, 13/00073, 13/03204 and 13/03202, set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 07.04.2014

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan, and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual and residential amenities of the area. 4 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) flank extensions ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1 5 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E ACI03R Reason I03

INFORMATIVE(S)

Page 55 1 You are advised that this application is considered to be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). The Levy will appear as a Land Charge on the relevant land with immediate effect.

Page 56 Application:14/00304/FULL6 Address: 5 Heath Park Drive Bickley Bromley BR1 2WQ

Proposal: Part one/two storey rear extension

Cherry Tree

72.2m Kerri

2 9

Lynwood

1 1

Pendower

71.5m 8

75.2m B IC Pantiles K L E Y R O A D

e c a l Cedar House P s li 72.2m y Old Orchard a B

a 1

74.9m 2

Suffolk House

Round Corners 8

HEATH PARK DRIVE

2 3

27 25 E 23b AN Playground 23a H L EAT E H

23 P 2 2 a

19 Bickley Park

2 71.0m 2

School

2 0

1 66.6m

1 8 2 T

Waylands E

L 13

S 1 6 Tennis Courts C

O S 8 E

Oakdell House

g d 7

o Shieling SE

L LO

S C e L 1:1,620

AE 4 e

h ICH

0 s

T T M

1 S

o H mming

h Swi c ol

a Po

o C

"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and e

h Page 57 T should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.8

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00518/FULL1 Ward: Chislehurst

Address : Huntingfield The Drive Chislehurst BR7 6QS

OS Grid Ref: E: 545582 N: 168981

Applicant : Mr N Carey Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two 5 bedroom detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Key designations:

Urban Open Space

Proposal

 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling at the site and erect a pair of detached two storey 5 bedroom dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.  The proposal will be similar to that allowed on appeal under ref. 13/00906, with an increase in the depth of the dwellings of 1.5m to provide an enlarged pair of dwellings. The internal arrangement of the dwellings will also be altered as a result. The width and heights of the houses will remain as previously allowed on appeal.

Location

The site is located on the northern edge of The Drive, and is currently the side garden of 'Huntingfield' a large detached dwelling set to the eastern edge of the plot.

Page 59 The surrounding locality is residential in nature, characterised by individually designed detached dwellings in a range of architectural styles, resulting in a varied streetscene. The drive has a semi-rural character, with large protected trees lining the highway edge.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations received are summarised as follows:

 inappropriate sub-division of the plot and cramped overdevelopment of the site.  excessive development, impacting on the character of the area  adjacent site appears from the plans to be proposed to be developed separately  long driveways proposed will impact on the green character of the site

The Chislehurst Society has objected on the grounds that the proposal would be a dominant and intrusive development, harmful to the character of the area. The proposal would also result in overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Comments from Consultees

No technical highways objections are raised.

No technical drainage objections are raised subject to a standard condition.

No Thames Water objections are raised.

No Environmental Health objections are raised subject to informatives.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan

BE1 Design of New Development NE7 Development and Trees H7 Housing Density and Design T3 Parking T11 New Accesses T18 Road Safety

The National Planning Policy Framework

London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential London Plan Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments London Plan Policy 7.4 Local character

Page 60 Planning History

Planning permission has been granted for a bungalow on this site under the following references: 74/01304, 81/2315, 84/2151, 87/03274 and 90/02432, none of which have been implemented.

Planning permission was refused under ref. 12/02300 for development of 1. no 4 bedroom detached dwelling with integral double garage. The refusal grounds were as follows:

'The proposals, by reason of the unsatisfactory siting, scale and height would appear over-dominant, intrusive and cramped in the streetscene, harmful to the character of The Drive, and contrary to policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposals, by reason of the excessive forward projection beyond Huntingfield would result in an intrusive impact and loss of prospect that would be harmful to the amenities that current and future occupiers might reasonably expect to continue to enjoy, contrary to policy BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.'

Planning permission was granted under ref. 12/02908 for development of one re- detached dwelling.

Planning permission was refused under ref. 13/00906 for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two 5 bedroom detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping. The refusal grounds were as follows:

'The proposal constitutes an unacceptable sub-division of the existing plot that is out of character with the surrounding area, resulting in a cramped overdevelopment of the site and a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the area is at present developed, and if permitted would set an undesirable precedent for similar sub-divisions in the locality, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.'

The application was subsequently allowed on appeal. The Inspector states:

'6. Compared against the other plots within The Drive, Huntingfield is set within a spacious plot and I consider it is of a sufficient size, and shape, to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed dwellings would sit in plots of a size and shape similar to those of existing dwellings on The Drive, including those under construction. Space between the proposed dwellings and their boundaries would reflect that of existing dwellings on The Drive and would be sufficient to prevent the proposed dwellings from appearing cramped within their plots.

7. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would not materially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Page 61 8. I have considered the Council's argument that the grant of planning permission would set a precedent for similar developments in the area, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. Notwithstanding that I have concluded that the proposed development would be acceptable, the Council has not put forward any similar sites to which this might apply. Each application and appeal must be determined on its individual merits and a generalised concern of this nature does not justify withholding permission in this case.

9. A broad concern has been raised that that the proposed development would not provide sufficient separation from existing dwellings. This concern is not supported by the views of the Council or appellant. I appreciate that the proposed development would have a greater presence than the existing dwelling for occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, on the evidence before me, I do not consider that this would result in material harm to their living conditions, subject to safeguarding conditions.

11. In addition, there is a general concern about the principle of redevelopment within The Drive and it has been raised that there is no need for the proposed development, with the Council stating it has an adequate supply of deliverable housing sites, thereby reducing the pressure for housing in locations such as the appeal site. The motives of the appellant are also questioned. However, as set out above, I have concluded that the proposed development is acceptable and a preference to retain the appeal site as existing is not a reason to withhold permission in this case. The motives of the appellant do not affect the planning merits of the case.'

Conclusions

The proposal differs from that allowed on appeal in that it increases the depth of both houses by approximately 1.5m, increasing the scale of the buildings and altering the internal layouts. Elevationally, the dwellings will closely match the allowed scheme, with the increase in depth reflected in the flank elevations.

The principle of the development has been considered acceptable and therefore the current proposal must assess the increase in bulk. This would have a minimal impact on the character of the area, and the widths of the houses will remain as allowed at appeal, therefore the impact on the street scene will be negligible. The increase in depth will retain rear gardens that will be 10m and 16m long respectively. It is considered that the increase in footprint would not result in a development that would tip the balance of acceptability, with the proposal not considered to overdevelop or cramp the site as a result of the increase. The dwellings would sit comfortably in the site when compared to the allowed scheme.

Page 62 Due to the separation of the dwellings from the houses surrounding the site, it is considered that the increase in size would not have a significant and harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings. Plot 1 will be sited 5m from Fir Tree Cottage and the increase in depth would not result in a dwelling that is significantly extended to the front or rear of this property. Similarly, the impact on the new dwelling at Lyridon would be similar to that allowed at appeal.

The impacts on highway safety and trees are not considered to differ substantially to that previously considered.

Amended plans have been received dated 01/04/14 indicating a correction to the flank elevational drawings.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the proposal is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area. No impact on trees or highway safety would result. It is therefore recommended that Members grant planning permission.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 12/02300, 12/02908, 13/00906 and 14/00518 set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 01.04.2014

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area. 3 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, height and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The approved boundary treatment shall be implemented before the dwellings are occupied and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of visual amenity and the amenities of adjacent properties. 4 Before the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the first floor windows on the side elevations shall be fitted with obscured glass and shall be permanently retained in that condition.

Page 63 Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties. 5 No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site, in accordance with the approved drawings, for vehicle circulation and parking. This space shall thereafter be kept available for such use at all times. Reason: In order to comply with Policy T3 of the Unitary Development Plan and to avoid development without adequate parking or garage provision, which is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and would be detrimental to amenities and prejudicial to road safety. 6 Development shall not begin until details of surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the dwellings are occupied and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage for the site. 7 None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of foul water drainage for the site. 8 In this condition retained tree means an existing tree that is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, including the Quaife Woodlands report (Ref:AR/2920/ci), and paragraphs (i) and (ii) below shall have effect until the expiration of 1 year from the date of the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted. i) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). ii) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority. iii) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, including demolition and site clearance, and shall be maintained until development is complete and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written approval of the local planning authority. iv) No bonfires shall take place within 6m of the furthest extent of the spread of the canopy of any retained tree. Reason: In order to comply with Policy NE7 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure that as many trees as possible are preserved at this stage, in the interest of amenity. 9 No development shall take place until details of the construction of the drive and vehicle parking and circulation space have been submitted to and

Page 64 approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to comply with Policy T3 of the Unitary Development Plan and to avoid development without adequate parking or garage provision, which is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and would be detrimental to amenities and prejudicial to road safety. 10 No development shall take place, including demolition or site clearance, until wheel washing facilities have been provided on site. The facilities shall be retained as such until the development is complete. Any vehicle leaving the site shall first use the wheel washing facilities and any accidental accumulation of mud on The Drive, caused by vehicles associated with the development, shall be cleared by the end of the working day at the latest. Reason: In the interest of pedestrian and vehicular safety and in order to comply with Policy T18 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. 11ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the character of the area and the amenities of nearby residential properties.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 In order to check that the proposed storm water system meets drainage requirements, we require that the following information be provided: - A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing pipe networks and any attenuation soakaways. - Where infiltration forms part of the proposed storm water system such as soakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to be submitted in accordance with BRE digest 365. - Calculations should demonstrate how the system operates during the 1 in 30 year critical duration storm event plus climate change.

2 If during works on site suspected contamination is encountered, Public Protection should be contacted immediately. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Authority for approval in writing by it or on its behalf.

3 Before the use commences, the applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Public Protection regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990

4 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

Page 65 If you fail to follow the payment procedure, the collecting authority may impose surcharges on this liability, take enforcement action, serve a stop notice to prohibit further development on the site and/or take action to recover the debt.

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

Page 66 Application:14/00518/FULL1 Address: Huntingfield The Drive Chislehurst BR7 6QS

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two 5 bedroom detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

L I

H LB D

S '

A P

8 7

94.4m CP

Ward Bdy

9 5

Pa Brackenwood th 1

( 9

u 7 m a )

94.0m

Pond

Posts

9 9

Spring

1 2

Collects

9 1

Finchfield

3 Robin Hood Cottages

6 1 Fir Tree Robin Hood Cottages Cottage

a 5

1 1 7

Huntingfield

E Pine Sunny S Lavender 21 O Ridge Corner 2a L Bank C Lyridon R E T

21 A

2 W 1 E 8

I VE 9 1 DRI 2 R THE L B EE 21 SO 0 Valentine NS H Lodge

ILL

91.5m Pimalai 1 0

20 4 D El Helida Almendra A Sub O R Sta

D e L 8 g E d I o F L

H y l Beechworth l 91.0m G o I

H H 7

200 E

S 1 Redwood O

E 196

9 7 2

7 7 2

3 7 2

89.4m 1

9 6 2

Abbots Park House 2

Tudor Cottage 88.2m 192

30 28

LB 88.3m LEES ONS 16 HILL 1:12 ,830

8 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n67d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.9

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00523/FULL1 Ward: Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : 48 Cameron Road Bromley BR2 9BQ

OS Grid Ref: E: 540155 N: 167610

Applicant : London Housing Trust Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Erection of one 2 bedroom three storey terraced dwelling adjoining 48 Cameron Road

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding

Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a two bedroom three storey terraced dwelling adjoining 48 Cameron Road.

The enlarged part that is to serve as a new dwelling replaces an existing two storey side extension and has a width of 4m, a length of 11.9m at ground floor level (10.1m at upper floor level) with a 2m deep rear element beyond the rear wall of the existing property. A side space of 1.5m is allowed for.

Location

The application site is located to the western edge of Cameron Road just south of the junction with Cheriton Avenue. The site features a three storey end-of-terrace dwelling with a two storey side extension to the northern flank elevation and is of the same design and style as the terrace to the south to Barnhill Avenue.

The northern boundary adjoins the rear of 1, 3 and 5 Cheriton Avenue. To the rear boundary the site is served by a footpath from Barnhill Avenue which serves the rear of the terrace and Nos. 14-25 (inc) Matfield Close to the west.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

Page 69  there is only one Conifer to Cheriton Avenue  the windows to the flank elevation will be visible to 1 Cheriton Avenue and will be visible if obscurely glazed or result in overlooking if openable  all flank windows should be obscure glazed or none at all  it is highly likely that the ground floor 'home office' will be used as either a bedroom or living room and so should be considered as a three bedroom dwelling  it is highly likely that the property will be used as a House in Multiple Occupation and would be unacceptable  since the applicant bought the house it is the house that never sleeps and lights are on all night with rubbish in the front  the existing garage has been converted to a bedroom with a false door  there would be an increase in overlooking to the rear and 14 Matfield Close  trees have been removed that have increased the overlooking to Matfield Close  the existing boundary fence between the site and 14 Matfield Close is in a state of disrepair and a replacement should be provided  there is no clarification as to the legal responsibilities of the enlarged access path

Comments from Consultees

Highways have commented that the two spaces for the existing property and one for the proposed dwelling are acceptable subject to conditions.

Street Services have commented that a bus refuge and utility cabinet exist already at the above location and new vehicular crossover application would require removal and relocation of both. It is considered that such a crossover would be likely to be refused.

Environmental Health have not objected.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T18 Road Safety

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 and 2

London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential London Plan Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments The Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing

Page 70 The National Planning Policy Framework, with which the above policies are considered to be in accordance.

Planning History

Application ref. 72/00325 permitted the existing two storey side extension with a garage to the ground floor.

A single storey rear extension is present to the property and this would appear to be that permitted under ref. 79/00402

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area, the quality of the proposed living accommodation and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

The proposal seeks to replace the existing two storey side extension with a three storey end-of-terrace dwelling that would be 0.5m greater in width and feature a two storey rear projection with a depth of 2m. the internal layout would see a habitable room off the front entrance and a ground floor toilet, a first floor living room and kitchen to the rear and two bedrooms and a bathroom to the second floor. Due to the change in ground levels the property presents three storeys to the front and two to the rear, in common with others in this terrace.

The property would have a side space of 1.5m which exceeds the requirements of Policy H9 and would be 0.5m closer to the boundary than the existing two storey element. The level of side space is considered acceptable and would not result in a cramped form of development, with particular regard being to the second storey being a continuation of the terrace to the northern boundary.

Whilst the flank wall of the property would be closer and higher, the overall impacts upon the amenities of the residents to the northern boundary are considered to be acceptable and would not be so detrimental as to warrant refusal. Flank windows are proposed which all serve the stairwell and the ground floor and second floor bathrooms, however any impacts upon privacy resulting from overlooking can be adequately mitigated by way of condition.

The two storey rear element is consider to be acceptable at 2m in depth and would not harm the character of the terrace in this location or result in a harmful impact upon the amenities or prospect of the residents at No.48. concerns have been raised regarding the impact upon the privacy of the residents at 14 Matfield Close to the west, however on planning grounds this is not considered justified.

The rear of the proposed property would be some 36m from the rear of this property which is considered more than sufficient to limit any overlooking and any impacts would not be substantially different than at present; for instance 56 Cameron Road is set back over 3m from the rear building line of Nos. 48-54 and

Page 71 has a similar distance to the rear of 17 Matfield Close which has the same rear building line as No.14.

The rear access path is to be extended to serve the garden of the new property subsequent to the sub-division of the existing garden at No.48. The maintenance and ownership of this path is considered to be a private legal matter between the relevant interested parties, however it is considered reasonable to require details of boundary enclosures to be submitted and approved in this regard.

No highways objections have been raised with regard to the proposed parking arrangements although comments have been received with regard to the possible vehicular crossover and the existing bus stop and equipment cabinet to Cameron Road. It is noted that access to that parking already exists to the site with the existing extension featuring a garage at ground floor level and any alterations to the crossover normally fall outside of the planning process.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref. 14/00523, set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 5 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 6 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 7 ACI01 Restriction of all "pd" rights Reason: In the interests of preventing an overdevelopment of the site and in the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents and to accord with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan 8 ACI11 Obscure glaz'g/details of opening (1 in) to the northern first and second floor elevation ACI11R Reason I11 (1 insert) BE1 9 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason

Page 72 10 The dwelling hereby permitted shall not at any time be sub-divided to form separate self-contained units and shall only be used as a single dwellinghouse by members of the household occupying the dwelling. Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1, H7 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, to ensure that the accommodation is not used separately as unsatisfactory sub-standard accommodation and to prevent an unacceptable intensification of the use and an associated increase in vehicular movements that would be detrimental to highway safety.

INFORMATIVE(S)

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

2 You should consult the Land Charges and Street Naming/Numbering Section at the Civic Centre on 020 8313 4742 or e-mail: [email protected] regarding Street Naming and Numbering. Fees and application forms are available on the Council's website at www.bromley.gov.uk

3 You are advised that it is an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 to obstruct "the free passage along the highway" (which includes the footway i.e. the pavement). This means that vehicles parked on the forecourt should not overhang the footway and therefore you should ensure that any vehicle is parked wholly within the site.

4 Any repositioning, alteration and/ or adjustment to street furniture or Statutory Undertaker's apparatus, considered necessary and practical to help with the modification of vehicular crossover hereby permitted, shall be undertaken at the cost of the applicant.

Page 73 Application:14/00523/FULL1 Address: 48 Cameron Road Bromley BR2 9BQ

Proposal: Erection of one 2 bedroom three storey terraced dwelling adjoining 48 Cameron Road

9 7 5 1

E 1 1

1 0 8 El

2 Sub gal House Sta Re

2 FB 6 1 8 Posts 2 10 4

CHERITON AVENUE 55.0m

2 4

Posts FB

8 4

53.6m 6 1

1 0

6 7

M O

A R

T N

O E

L R

7 5

E 5

2 2

5 7 1

54.7m BARNHILL AVENUE 59.2m

B 1 6 1

O 2

U 3

R 2

L 3 8

2 9

3 1

1 7

5 1

E 1:1,210

L O "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and S Page 74 E should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.10

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00593/FULL1 Ward: Clock House

Address : Land Rear Of 101 Mackenzie Road Beckenham BR3 4RY

OS Grid Ref: E: 535786 N: 169380

Applicant : Julian Beale Construction Ltd Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Demolition of garage and erection of new end of terrace for bedroom house with accommodation in roofspace

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds

Proposal

The proposal is the demolition of an existing detached garage on land to the side and rear of No.101 Mackenzie Road and the erection of new end of terrace four bedroom house with accommodation in the roofspace.

The new property would mirror the 'L-shaped' layout typical of the Victorian period and would have a gross internal area (GIA) of 112.5m2. The development would retain a separation from the side boundary of 1.2m at the front increasing to 2.4m, and the existing access will be altered and split to allow each house to have one parking space to the front, with the new dwelling having a second parking space at the rear of the site, accessed via the existing crossover at the side boundary.

Location

The site is located to the south-west of No.101 Mackenzie Road, at the junction of Avenue Road. The site is bounded by the railway line to the south and comprises an area that was historically used as an area to store builder's materials. The immediate area is predominantly residential in character, although there is a large commercial premises opposite the site to the north.

Comments from Local Residents

Page 75 Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 the proposed end of terrace design does not complement the form of the existing semi-detached houses  the design does not reflect the established frontage and rhythm of the street scene  the proposal does not allow adequate side space to the boundary of the plot on all sides  loss of amenity to future occupants of No.101  the emulated period design does not complement adjacent buildings or the wider street  the rear elevation does not adhere to the same design and materials of adjacent properties  the development would negatively impact the owners/occupiers of No.99  the new house will look different to surrounding houses  parking is already very difficult, the new house should have two spaces  the development would set a precedent  the new house would be overlooked by the adjacent tram access  would have a negative impact on the street  concerns over a loss of privacy at No.124 Avenue Road (formerly 105 Mackenzie Road)

Comments from Consultees

Highways - initial concerns were raised over the provision of one parking space for the proposed dwelling and one remaining space for the donor property. Revised plans indicating provision of a second parking space at the rear of the site (thus providing two parking spaces for the new house) were considered by the Councils Highways Engineers. The revised set up is considered to be satisfactory, subject to standard planning conditions. It is noted that there is an existing access to the rear of the site.

Environmental Health - no comments received

Thames water - with regard to water infrastructure capacity and sewerage infrastructure capacity, no objection is raised.

Drainage - no objection is raised subject to standard conditions and informatives.

Cleansing - no comments received.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H1 Housing Supply

Page 76 H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T18 Road Safety

The above policies are considered to be consistent with the principles and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which is a key consideration in the determination of this application.

London Plan Policies: 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 5.13 Sustainable Drainage 7.3 Designing Out Crime 7.4 Local Character

The Councils SPG guidance is also a consideration:

Supplementary Planning Guidance No.1 - General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Guidance No.2 - Residential Design Guidance

Planning History

In terms of planning history, the area was historically used as an area to store builder's materials. This use was formalised by way of an existing use certificate granted by the Council in 1983 under ref. 83/00971. In 2004 (under ref. 04/00225) planning permission was granted for the change of use of the site to residential garden land to provide additional amenity space for No.101, and is currently occupied by a detached garage.

Conclusions

The application site was visited by the case officer and the aims and objectives of the above policies, national and regional planning guidance, all other material planning considerations including any objections, other representations and relevant planning history on the site were taken into account in the assessment of the proposal.

The area is predominantly residential in nature, and the proposal is to replace an existing detached garage with a new dwelling which would mirror the design of surrounding residential development. Members may feel therefore that the general principle of residential development in this location is not inherently unacceptable.

Page 77 The dwelling would accord with the Mayors Housing Supplementary Guidance in respect of minimum space standards, and regard must also be had for the location of the property is relation to the nearby railway line. It is noted that the majority of this side of the street is the same distance from the railway line and is also in residential use. No Environmental Health objections have been raised.

The new house would retain a separation from the side boundary of a minimum of 1.2m, increasing to 2.4m at the rear due to the stepped nature of the footprint of the new dwelling. Policy H9 seeks to retain a minimum of 1.0m from the flank boundary in respect of two storey developments, and a more generous side space provision where "higher standards of separation already exist". The area is relatively densely populated, comprising mainly terraced housing, and the proposed separation would generally accord with the level of separation seen at other corner properties in the immediate area, including the opposite corner property at the junction of Avenue Road and Mackenzie Road.

In many cases, development located on corner plots may require a higher degree of side space in order to maintain important sightlines into adjoining side roads. The road adjacent to the site leads to a railway footbridge, and the proposed separation will be broadly similar to the level of separation seen elsewhere in the vicinity. On balance, therefore, the level of side space provided is considered acceptable and is not considered to result in a cramped form of development.

The new dwelling would sit comfortably within the streetscene, without appearing as an incongruous addition. Local objections concerned about the external appearance of a new dwelling in this location are noted, and a condition requiring the proposed materials to be agreed by the Council is considered appropriate in the circumstances. It is also considered reasonable to require details of the proposed boundary enclosures to be submitted and approved by the Council.

In terms of the impact on surrounding amenity, the house would mirror the 'L- shaped' layout typical of many properties in the immediate area. The house would incorporate rear facing windows, including those within the proposed rear dormer. Any perceived overlooking or loss of privacy at neighbouring properties is not considered to be at a level that would not be reasonably expected in a typical suburban relationship between neighbours. The house would be attached to No.101, and any impact on the amenity of No.101 is not considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission, given that the resulting relationship would be the same as a number of nearby terraced properties.

Concerns have been raised from a nearby resident that the first floor windows proposed for the first floor south-western elevation would result in a loss of amenity. Given that No.124 Avenue Road sits to the south of the proposed development, any impact on the passage of light to that property would be minimal, the properties are separated by Avenue Road and a distance of around 15m. As the first floor flank window would serve a proposed bathroom it is considered that a condition requiring the obscurity of this window could mitigate against perceived loss of privacy at that side.

Page 78 Whilst the concerns of the occupants of No.99 Mackenzie Road are noted, the issues of design and side space provision are covered above. In respect of any impact on the future value of neighbouring properties, this is not a material consideration and falls outside of the process of determining this application on its planning merits. Issues relating to the structural integrity of the proposed dwelling and the impact on the same at neighbouring properties are not matters for consideration as part of this application. These would be dealt with by other Council departments such as Building Control and Environmental Health, should planning consent be granted.

From a highways perspective, the initial drawings indicated that both the donor property and the new house would have a car parking space to the front. This was considered to be unsatisfactory. Local concern over parking provision were also received. Amended plans showing a second parking space to the rear of the new dwelling were received on 10th April. The Councils Highways Engineers have inspected the revised plans and are satisfied with this arrangement. On this basis, and subject to planning conditions, no Technical Highways objections area raised.

On balance, and having had regard to the above it was considered that the siting, size and design of the proposed dwelling is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area. Members may feel that the proposal represents an efficient use of under-utilised land within a residential area and that planning consent should be granted, subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 3 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01 4 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt AED02R Reason D02 5 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 6 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 7 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E

Page 79 Reason: In the interests of preventing an overdevelopment of the site, in the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents and to accord with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan. 8 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the first floor flank elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 9 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 Any repositioning, alteration and/ or adjustment to street furniture or Statutory Undertaker's apparatus, considered necessary and practical to help with the modification of vehicular crossover hereby permitted, shall be undertaken at the cost of the applicant.

2 In order to check that the proposed storm water system meets the Council's requirements, we require that the following information be provided:

- A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing pipe networks and any attenuation soakaways;

- Where infiltration forms part of the proposed storm water system such as soakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to be submitted in accordance with BRE digest 365;

- Calculations should demonstrate how the system operates during the 1 in 30 year critical duration storm event plus climate change.

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

Page 80 Application:14/00593/FULL1 Address: Land Rear Of 101 Mackenzie Road Beckenham BR3 4RY

Proposal: Demolition of garage and erection of new end of terrace for bedroom house with accommodation in roofspace

0 1

7 0 1 82

6 7

0 1 9 0 9

35.7m

7 0

1 2

0 06 1 1

ry to ac 1 F

2 A 7 s

V ta 8 1 E 1 S 9 b N 2 u U 9 l S E E R

O 6

1 A

1 D

0 1

2 2

0 1

1 FB 1 7 2 n 15 o ti ta S ad o R e D u A en O v R A IE

A 1

N V 6 7

E 1

K 2 R E

N 6 1

C O 6 7 A A U 1 3 M D E LB 8 16

1 1

8 1

2 19 4 19

k 1

lin 1:860

m 1

a 9 Tr 1 5 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n81d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.11

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00666/FULL6 Ward: Bromley Town

Address : 10 Havelock Road Bromley BR2 9NZ

OS Grid Ref: E: 541320 N: 168356

Applicant : Ms Sarah McQuillan Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Formation of hard standing and vehicular access

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds

Proposal

The application seeks permission for the formation of hardstanding and vehicular access for 10 Havelock Road, Bromley. The hardstanding will be an area approximately 2.9m in width by 4.3m in depth (from the bay window to the pavement) when scaled from the submitted drawing. The materials to be used for the hardstanding will be non-porous. The proposed vehicular access will be 2.9m in width. A pathway to the front door of the dwelling is shown to be retained and a small area of planting with refuse and recycling area in between the pathway and driveway is also indicated.

Location

The application site is a two storey mid-terrace property on the south-western side of Havelock Road, Bromley. Most of the properties along Havelock Road currently benefit from a front driveway and dropped kerb.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.

Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Comments from Consultees

Page 83 Comments were received from the Council's Highways officer which state; "There is not enough depth to park a car. The distance between bay window and footway is 4.3m. We ask for minimum of 4.5m. Havelock Road comes in CPZ. The proposed crossover would result in the removal of one marked on-street parking bay in contrary to our footway crossovers policy and guidelines. Presumption would be to recommend refusal."

Comments were received from the Council's Streetscene and Greenspace department which state; "I visited this site today and found that the depth of the proposed driveway is less than 4.5 metres (4.3m as measured by me). There is also a parking bay and post which would require removal and relocation. As I have already refused similar applications on the same basis in this road I can confirm that we would also refuse this crossover application on the above grounds."

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development T11 New Accesses T18 Road Safety

The London Plan and National Planning Policy Framework are also key considerations in determination of this application.

The above policies are considered to be consistent with the principles and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning History

There is no planning history at the property.

Conclusions

The property is one of 71 dwellinghouses in the road, 34 to the north-eastern side and 37 to the south-west (application) side. There are also two blocks of flats. There are currently a total of 48 properties with crossovers and frontage parking and 23 properties without (i.e 67.6% have off street parking). Members will see from the OS extract and plans attached to the file that the houses are sited along a regular building line and there are many examples of vehicles slightly overhanging the public footway, although this does not impede pedestrian movement along this relatively quiet residential road.

Whilst concerns have been raised by the highways engineers, and should be taken into account, Members will need to consider whether an additional vehicle parked similarly to those along the road will materially affect highway conditions or the local environment. It is also necessary to consider, given the particular circumstances along this road, whether a refusal ground can be substantiated at appeal.

Page 84 On balance, given the circumstances, Members may consider that the application as proposed is acceptable and would not cause a detrimental impact to the character of the area, would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents and would not cause such harm to highways conditions as to warrant a refusal for planning permission.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref. 14/00666, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason

Page 85 Application:14/00666/FULL6 Address: 10 Havelock Road Bromley BR2 9NZ

Proposal: Formation of hard standing and vehicular access

D in g le y D e ll

7 6 6

56.9m

6 5 2

3 6

6 LB

5 2 9 0

5 1

5 4

5 4 53 2 13

3 2 Regis House D A O R

E 23

L 4 A 1 D S E M 25 O t H o

6 2 45 H A V E L 1 O C K R O A

8 3

6 3 G RE AT E 13 LM S

R 3 O

3 AD

59.7m 5 to 8

t 2 o 3 19

4 0 3 1:880 Langley Garden"sThis plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n86d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.12

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00684/FULL6 Ward: Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : 1 Hartfield Road West Wickham BR4 9DA

OS Grid Ref: E: 540203 N: 164956

Applicant : Mr Miller Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Part one/two storey side/rear extension to include steps to rear

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for a part one/two storey side/rear extension to include steps to rear.

The single storey element will wrap around the rear of the property and is proposed to be 4.0m wide to the front and a total of 11m wide at the rear. This would have a rear projection towards the boundary with No.3 Hartfield Road of 3.5m and would provide additional living accommodation and a larger kitchen. At first floor, the extension will have a side projection of 2.5m and will not project beyond the rear elevation. Two first floor side windows are proposed in the southern elevation (towards the junction of Harvest Bank Road), with one bathroom window proposed in the rear elevation of the first floor extension.

Members will note the revised drawings received on 3rd April 2014 indicating a reduction in the height of the single storey rear extension of 200mm, and a lowering of the eaves height towards No.3 Hartfield Road.

Location

The application site comprises a chalet style house which occupies a prominent corner plot adjacent to the junction Hartfield Road and Harvest Bank Road. The area is residential in nature, with examples of one/two storey extensions evident in the area.

Page 87 Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 the occupants of No.1 Harvest Bank Road raise concerns over the extension being outside the Harvest Bank Road building line and the two proposed first floor side windows leading to increased overlooking  the Wickham Common Residents Association (WCRA) raise concerns over the quality of the submitted drawings, insufficient parking to accommodate new cars, the side extension breaching the building line of Harvest Bank Road, and the restriction of sunlight to the rear of No.3 Hartfield Road

Comments from Consultees

None requested.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan - BE1 (Design of New Development), H8 (Residential Extensions) and H9 (Side Space)

The Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance is also a consideration.

The above policies are considered to be consistent with the principles and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework which is a key consideration in the determination of this application.

Planning History

The site has a detailed planning history relating to previous unsuccessful planning applications:

12/02186/FULL6 - first floor side and part one/two storey rear extensions to include steps to rear and roof alterations to provide accommodation in the roof space - refused. The reason for this refusal was:

"The proposed extension by reason of its size, height, bulk and incongruous design in a prominent location is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and street scene in general and would unbalance the symmetry of this pair of semi- detached properties thereby contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan".

A revised application was submitted under ref. 12/03099 for a part one/two storey side/rear extension to include steps to the rear, which was also refused by the Council for the following reason:

"The proposed extension would extend beyond the established front building line of properties in Harvest Bank Road and together with its size,

Page 88 width and bulk sited on this prominent exposed corner plot would unbalance the symmetry of this pair of semi-detached properties and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and street scene in general thereby contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan".

In February 2013 a further application was submitted under ref. 13/00653 for part one/two storey side/rear extension to include steps to rear. This was refused by the Council for the following reasons:

"The proposed extension by reason of its design, size, bulk and rearward projection in view of its siting on this prominent exposed corner plot would lead to an incongruous form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and harmful to the visual amenities of the street scene in general, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 in the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed rear extension by reason of its proximity to the boundary with the adjoining property at No.3 and excessive depth of rearward projection would be harmful to the amenities that the occupiers of that property may reasonably be able to continue to enjoy with regard to visual impact, overdominance and overshadowing thereby contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan".

In September 2013, a further application (under ref. 13/02437) for a part one/two storey side/rear extension to include steps to rear was again refused by Members for the same reasons as above.

The previous applicants submitted an appeal against the Councils decision. The Inspector shared the Councils view that the proposal would result in a harmful impact on the amenities of the occupants of No.3 Hartfield Road and the appeal was subsequently dismissed.

The Inspectors comments in his report (ref. APP/G5180/D/13/2209933) are a material consideration in the determination of this revised proposal. Members may wish to note that the current application has been submitted on behalf of a new owner of the property.

Conclusions

The host site represents a relatively modest property on a wide plot, and has not been extended from its original form. As can be seen from the planning history, the site has been the subject of four unsuccessful planning applications - and an unsuccessful appeal - and this further revised scheme attempts to overcome the concerns of the Council.

Page 89 This revised application is identical to the most recently refused proposal at the site under application ref. 13/02437 (which was also dismissed at appeal) but removes the two storey rear element as proposed previously.

The Inspector concludes in his report that this two storey rear element would have resulted in a harmful impact on the amenity of No.3, to the north of the site. This current application removes this element.

However, in para. 6 the Inspector notes that "…the single storey rear element would be sufficiently low in relation to the patio and windows of No. 3 that it would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of its occupiers in regards to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing, nor would its modest rear projection appear over-dominant." The current application proposes the same rear projection (3.5m) and, following revised plans being received on 3rd April 2014, lowers the roof height by 200mm and the height of the eaves towards the boundary with No.3. The Inspector went further and stated that "…the proposed single storey side and rear extensions are subordinate to the host property and spaced a sufficient distance from the boundary that these elements of the scheme would not appear incongruous…".

On this basis, the single storey extension as proposed is considered acceptable.

The Inspector also considered the first floor side extension proposed previously - and which is largely replicated in the current proposal whilst removing the projection past the rear building line - and noted that such extensions are a common feature of similar houses in the area. It was noted that a similar extension exists at No.3 that does not project past the rear building line. Given, these comments and the removal of the first floor rear projection previously proposed, the first floor side extension is also considered acceptable.

Having had regard to the above, and in particular the comments of the Inspector in his report ref. APP/G5180/D/13/2209933, Members may consider that the proposed extension would not constitute an over dominant addition to the host dwelling, or result in an unacceptable impact on streetscene or neighbouring amenity.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Page 90 Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the first floor flank elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 4 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of the nearby residential properties.

Page 91 Application:14/00684/FULL6 Address: 1 Hartfield Road West Wickham BR4 9DA

Proposal: Part one/two storey side/rear extension to include steps to rear

2 6

R OB H INS

A G 6 7 R R OV T E F I E L D 77.6m C R E S C

E N 8

8 1

LB 23

71.9m

2 10

1 9 6

HA 2 RV ES T

5 N 1 K R O 3 AD

69.8m

D A 2 O R

3 D L

E 1 I F T 73 R A H S N E D R A

G El 2 Y E Sub N 3 D Sta O R

69.7m

87 2

8 7a

8 9 L

0 R 1

0 E

b N 6 1 C E RO

6 97 1

1 13 71.2m 1:1,280 GAT ES GRE EN ROA "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n92dD should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.13

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration

Application No : 14/00742/FULL1 Ward: Copers Cope

Address : 47 Manor Road Beckenham BR3 5JB

OS Grid Ref: E: 537698 N: 169454

Applicant : Mr Kieran Moore Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Conversion of existing dwelling to form 5 two bedroom flats with part one/two/three storey rear extensions, replacement roof with front rooflights, side and rear dormers and provision of three car parking spaces, refuse and cycle store.

Key designations:

Areas of Archaeological Significance Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds London Distributor Roads

Proposal

The existing property is a substantial period semi-detached property set over three storeys.

The proposal is the conversion of the existing dwelling to form 5 two bedroom flats. This will include a part one/part two/part three storey rear extension, replacement roof with front rooflights and side and rear dormer extensions. Three car parking spaces are proposed at the front of the property.

Additional information in the form of a revised parking layout (showing three spaces) and a Parking Capacity and Accessibility Assessment was submitted by the applicants on 25th March 2014.

Location

Manor Road is a residential road made up mostly of substantial period properties, most of which have been converted into apartments. The site is within walking distance of Beckenham High Street.

Comments from Local Residents

Page 93 Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 whilst not objecting to the principle of a conversion, concerns are raised over a detrimental impact on the occupants of No. 49 Manor Road  the proposed bin area would be unsightly  overdevelopment of the property  insufficient parking provision  the extension would protrude past the rear building line

Comments from Consultees

Technical Highways concerns were initially raised over the provision of insufficient car parking spaces with no assessment of any impact on the surrounding road network, as well as noting that secure cycle spaces are also required.

The applicants subsequently provided a Parking Capacity and Accessibility Assessment. The Councils Highways Engineers have inspected this additional information and, on balance, raise no objection to the provision of three spaces and 5 secure cycle spaces. A series of planning conditions and informatives are suggested. .

Environmental Health (housing) - no comments.

Crime Prevention - No comments received.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan

BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space H11 Residential Conversions T3 Parking T18 Road Safety

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The London Plan (2011) policies:

3.3 Increasing Housing Supply 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments (inc. Table 3.3 Minimum space standards for new development)

Planning History

Page 94 In 2014 under ref. 13/04211, an application for the conversion of the host building (including substantial extensions) to form 5 x 2 bed and 1x 1 bed flats was withdrawn prior to being determined.

Applications of particular note at nearby properties include:

45 Manor Road, Beckenham

04/00947/FULL1 - First floor rear and side and rear dormer extensions and conversion into 1 one bedroom and 4 two bedroom flats - permitted (revised under 05/00668/FULL6 and 07/01578/FULL1)

49 Manor Road, Beckenham

07/02847/FULL1 - Three storey side/rear extension and conversion to form 5 two bedroom flats and one bedroom self-contained annex / roof terrace at rear / associated access and forecourt parking for six vehicles - refused (overdevelopment, lack of sidespace)

07/03668/FULL1 - Part two/three storey rear and rear dormer extensions and conversion to form 5 two bedroom flats/roof terrace at rear/associated access and forecourt parking for six vehicles – permitted

08/03932/FULL1 - Single storey rear extension/hip to gable end extension incorporating roof terrace with railings at rear/conversion to form 1 one bedroom, 2 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats with 4 forecourt parking spaces and bin store - permitted (amended under ref: 09/00545/FULL1 to add a rear dormer; front dormers added under ref: 09/01579/FULL6; an application to add rear balconies was refused under ref: 09/01580/FULL6; roof terrace added under ref: 09/02780/FULL6, a further application to add rear facing balconies was refused under ref: 09/03425/FULL1; side dormer added under ref: 09/03579/FULL1; an application for a rear balcony at second floor level was granted under ref: 10/02019/FULL1).

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area; the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties; and the extent to which the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

The host property is a substantial Victorian dwelling, and the principle of a conversion into separate self-contained flats is not considered unacceptable. There

Page 95 are numerous examples of similar sub-divisions in the immediate area, including both properties immediately adjacent to the site.

In order to create the internal space required to house 5 apartments, the applicants are proposing to construct a rear extension stepping up from single storey at the boundary with No.45 to the west to three storeys at the eastern side towards No.49. The three storey element will have a rear projection of around 5m, and will be set away from the eastern boundary with No.49 by 2.8m. It is noted that the proposal is similar in general scale to the additions seen at No.45.

The proposal would be similar in appearance to the development at No.45, however the relationship between the three storey element at No.45 and its neighbour at No.43 is noticeably different to the proposed relationship between the western flank of No.47 and No.49. Due to the stepped rear building line seen at No.49, regard must be had as to the impact of this the extension at the eastern edge of the site on the prospect from the ground floor windows of No.49. The extension has been stepped away from the shared boundary, maintaining the existing building line at that side. On balance, whist clearly a sizeable addition, the development is not considered to have an overbearing impact on the general amenity of the occupants of the ground floor apartment at No.49, or other residents within the neighbouring properties.

The scheme proposes 5 apartments (5 x one two bedrooms flats) which is a similar intensity of use seen at other locations within the street. No.45 contains 5 flats with four parking spaces, with No.49 housing four apartments, each with a parking space. The provision of 5 apartments with three car parking spaces raised initial concerns from the Councils Highways department, without any assessment of the likely impact on the surrounding road network.

Additional information received on 25th March 2014 in the form of a Parking and Accessibility Statement concluded that, given the proximity of the site to other forms of transport and the current zero provision of off street parking for the existing 5 bedroom house, the development is unlikely to have a major impact from a Highways perspective. It is noted that the site is located on the edge of Beckenham town centre in a convenient location and a reduction in the parking requirement at the site could therefore be justified, given the accessibility to public transport links. Two of the proposed units will be marketed as 'car free', and the Councils Highways Engineers raise no objection after considering this additional information. A number of suggested planning condition are suggested and detailed at the end of this report.

The drawings indicate that refuse would be collected from the roadside with a refuse store located at the rear of the property behind a timber screen to match the existing boundary fence. No Highways objections are raised in relation to the collection of domestic waste from the site.

The applicant has not indicated how appropriate measures to meet Secure By Design standards will be incorporated into the scheme, and an appropriate condition requesting such details could therefore be attached to any permission that is granted.

Page 96 On balance, having regard to the above it is considered that the general principle of a conversion of the building is not considered to be inherently out of character with the prevailing nature of the streetscene. Given the context of the site and surrounding development, Members may consider that the intensity of the use of the site by virtue of the number of units proposed, and the proposed extensions, are acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 4 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 5 ACH19 Refuse storage - implementation ACH19R Reason H19 6 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 7 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29 8 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 9 No loose materials shall be used for the surfacing of the parking and turning area herby permitted, and the crossover shall be constructed prior to the commencement of any building work Reason: In order to comply with Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area. 10 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed windows in the first floor flank (eastern) elevation shall be obscure glazed to minimum Cat 3 (Pilkington scale) and non-opening below 1.7m above floor level, and shall subsequently be permanently retained as such. Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties. 11 ACI21 Secured By Design ACI21R I21 reason 12 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason

INFORMATIVE(S)

Page 97 1 You should contact extension 4621 (020 8313 4621 direct line) at the Environmental Services Department at the Civic Centre with regard to the laying out of the crossover(s) and/or reinstatement of the existing crossover(s) as footway. A fee is payable for the estimate for the work which is refundable when the crossover (or other work) is carried out. A form to apply for an estimate for the work can be obtained by telephoning the Highways Customer Services Desk on the above number.

2 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

Page 98 Application:14/00742/FULL1 Address: 47 Manor Road Beckenham BR3 5JB

Proposal: Conversion of existing dwelling to form 5 two bedroom flats with

part one/two/three storey rear extensions, replEacement roof with front S

O L rooflights, side and rear dormers and provisiC on of three car parking

D O

spaces, refuse and cycle store. O W 2 H 8 S E R

F 2

1 to 9 3

6 Knoll House

39.0m

5 6

6 38.1m

0 6

0 3 8

3 4

4 2 4

39.9m

4 4

1 to 5 Connaught 6

37 House 4 49

41.7m M ANOR ROAD

5 4 4 3 0 6 2 4

4 4

Surgery

1 O 1

A 8

D 7

2 1:980

1 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n99d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.14

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 13/03290/FULL6 Ward: Shortlands

Address : 90 Malmains Way Beckenham BR3 6SF

OS Grid Ref: E: 538837 N: 167746

Applicant : Dr Sivalingam Sivathasan Objections : YES

Description of Development:

First floor front/side and rear extension

Key designations:

Area of Special Residential Character Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Open Space Deficiency

Proposal

The application property is a detached modern house built in the mid 1990's and features a front gable and a pitched 'catslide' roof orientated away from the north-western boundary. It is proposed to extend this dwelling in the form of a first floor side and rear extension. The existing front gable feature would be replicated at the opposite side of the house and is shown in the elevation plans to be almost flush with the main front wall and set back approx. 2.15m with the boundary with No.88. Two obscure glazed windows are shown in the first floor side elevation which would serve the landing area and a wardrobe and en- suite facilities.

To the rear the first floor extension will project 4.05m in depth and 3.7m in width also retaining 2.15m to the boundary with No.88. The design will feature a pitched roof. No windows are shown in the flank elevations of this part of the extension

Subsequent to the initial planning application being validated, additional information was submitted in the form of a daylight / sunlight report. The report authors main accreditations include Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and Masters degree in building surveying.

Location

Page 101 The property is located at the south-eastern end of Malmains Way close to the junction with Bushey Way. The street is characterised by detached dwellings of varied design mostly dating from the 1920-50's set within an attractive tree- lined setting. The property falls within Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) and is described within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as follows:

"…built sporadically between the 1920's and 1950's, whilst not of the same exceptional standard [as the Conservation Area] has the character of a garden estate given by the high quality and appearance of the hedges, walls, fences, and front gardens. The area, which comprises almost exclusively large detached two storey family homes on generous plots …represents a coherent, continuous and easily identifiable area, which has maintained its character and unity intact."

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and 2 representations were received including a letter from the Park Langley Residents Association (PLRA) which can be summarised as follows:

 PLRA - proposed development should be consistent with Unitary Development Plan Policies and should satisfy the reasons for which previous applications were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate

 No.88 - Current plans will make a difference in terms of the amount of light coming into the kitchen due to bulk of building proposed  there is no technical sunlight/ daylight report submitted to support applicants agents contention regarding impact on light  the house was purchased in 1978 when the ground floor extension had already been built  the blind in the kitchen is not lowered most of the time  original design had regard to the effect it would have on natural light to the kitchen hence the catslide roof.  the proposed extension still significantly encroaches on natural light reaching the kitchen  the kitchen is the hub of the house and also a working environment where natural light is necessary  application does not fully address the issues raised in the appeal decision  the application should consider a dormer window on the other side

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

In considering the application the main policies are H10, H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 102 Policy H10 concerns Areas of Special Residential Character, applications in these areas will be required to respect and complement the established and individual qualities of the area.

PolicyH8 concerns residential extensions and requires the design and layout of proposals to complement the scale and form of the host dwelling, respect spaces and gaps between buildings where contribute to the character of an area.

Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 and 2 The National Planning Policy Framework

The most recent appeal decision regarding this site relates to a similar proposal for a first floor side and rear extension under planning ref. 13/00771.

The Inspector concluded that without a detailed daylight / sunlight report it would not be possible to properly assess the impact of the proposed extension on kitchen window of No.88 and on this basis the appeal was dismissed.

It was also noted that the long catslide roof was an unusual feature that was out of character with properties nearby and further afield with the Park Langley ASRC and that the additional gable would create a more harmonious appearance.

The principle issues in this case are whether the current scheme complies with the main policies quoted above and also whether the new proposal addresses and overcomes the issues set out by the Inspector in dismissing the previous proposal.

The main difference between with the current application as compared to the previous application under planning ref. 13/00771 are as follows:

 1.05m reduction in the width of the of the first floor rear element closest to the boundary with No.88.

In support of the proposal the applicant's agent sets out the following points:

 the design seeks to enhance the street elevation by adding a gable which provides symmetry and balance to front the elevation  the 'kitchen ' at No.88 cannot be considered a kitchen diner as it is too small  submitted drawing show angles of light which exist which could be used to make a proper judgement of the impact on kitchen at No.88.

Under planning ref. 13/03395, a further application is currently being considered. This proposal is also for a first floor side/ rear extension and is a

Page 103 variation of the current application proposing a staggered first floor flank building line as follows:

2.15m side space maintained for the first part of the extension [4.27m (d)] , then 2.9m side space maintained for larger middle section [5.45m] (d) followed by 1.1m side space maintained for the first floor rear element [4.33m] (d)

The assessment was carried out specifically in relation to plan No. 2K13/02/2/3 which accompanied this application. Having regard for guidance contained within Site layout Planning for daylight & sunlight,(BRE 2011) and BS8206-2 Code of practice for skylighting (2008). Detailed survey results are contained within the report. In broad terms the report assessed 3 aspects of light: sunlight, daylight and amenity space.

Daylight - (Vertical sky component) the ratio of direct skylight falling on a vertical reference point. In this instance the most affected reference point being the flank kitchen window at No.88. The result indicated that subject window at No.88 fell just outside the recommended guidance, however given how close it was to this figure it was considered acceptable. Daylight distribution, relates to amount of visible skyline after a development at a given point (0.85m high) within a room . It outlines the percentage of a room that will not receive direct sunlight. In relation to No. 88 it states the kitchen (R2) falls short

Sunlight- (Annual Probable Sunlight Hours) the amount of sunshine hours a window should receive (25%) The subject window fell short of the recommended winter sunlight hours

Amenity space - The amenity space surpassed the recommended amount of sunlight hours.

The executive summary of the report concludes that the majority of the rooms comfortably fulfil the guidance requirements and the "proposals accord with the intent and context of planning guidance…"

Planning History

03/01919/FULL1 Single storey side/rear extension and single storey rear extension for conservatory (amendment to scheme permitted under ref. 02/01238, alteration to roof design) PER 03.07.2003

10/02118/FULL First floor side extension REF 07.03.2011

11/03032/FULL First floor side and rear extension REF 21.03.2012

13/00771/FULL First floor side and rear extension REF 06.06.2013

13/03395/FULL First floor side and rear extension PDE

Conclusions

Page 104 The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties particularly loss of sunlight and daylight to No.88.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the scheme is an improvement on that submitted under ref. 13/00771. The most recent appeal decision (August 2013) favoured the general design of the scheme and called for the issue of loss of sunlight/ daylight to No.88 to be considered in greater detail. The daylight & sunlight survey does point out failure to meet thresholds within the kitchen in some instances. However, the overall conclusions of the report on this point is that the proposals accords with the guidance, on this basis and wider than average flank to flank separation between Nos. 88 and 90 the scheme is considered to be acceptable.

It is noted that the impact in terms of daylight and sunlight is one of the material considerations to be taken into account in conjunction with all others. It is open to the sub-committee to determine the application on its individual merits.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 13/03290, 13/03395, 13/00771, 11/03032 and 10/02118 set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 11.03.2014

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, in line with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 4 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) north-western first floor side and rear ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1

Page 105 Application:13/03290/FULL6 Address: 90 Malmains Way Beckenham BR3 6SF

Proposal: First floor front/side and rear extension

ta S

ub 4 1 S El

SE RI E RN U 7 O 1 AB a BR

2 6

2 6 E L W I 0 L 2

2 9 W A Y

2 9

M A L

4 7 A I N S 8 7

W 4

0 A 1

Y 3 3

1 3

0 9 1 7

8 8

1 0

W 9 O 1

O 9 3 0 D M 75 E 2 R 3 63.6m E W

Y 8

4 9

0 3

5 7 2

61.9m

Y PARK LANGLEY A W Y

0 H 4 S U 8

B 3 5

47 8

2 4

45 61.3m y d B rd F a C

4 2 4

6 5

2 3 a 3 61.5m D A O

5 D 3 O O W D L IE F 1:1,910 N R A B "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n106d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.15

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 13/03395/FULL6 Ward: Shortlands

Address : 90 Malmains Way Beckenham BR3 6SF

OS Grid Ref: E: 538837 N: 167746

Applicant : Dr Sivalingam Sivathasan Objections : YES

Description of Development:

First floor side and rear extension

Key designations:

Area of Special Residential Character Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Open Space Deficiency

Proposal

The scheme incorporates a staggered first floor flank building line as follows:

 2.15m side space [to boundary with No.88] maintained for the first part of the extension [4.27m (d)]  2.9m side space maintained for larger middle section [5.45m] (d)  1.1m side space maintained for the first floor rear element [4.33m] (d).

The flank to flank separation at the narrower middle section of the extension between the application property and No.88 would be approx. 5m

Two obscure glazed windows are shown in the first floor side elevation which would serve the landing area and a wardrobe and en-suite facilities.

Page 107 To the rear the first floor extension will project 4.05m in depth and 4.75m in width, retaining 1.1m to the boundary with No.88. The design will feature a pitched roof. No windows are shown in the flank elevations of this part of the extension.

Location

The property is located at the south-eastern end of Malmains Way close to the junction with Bushey Way. The street is characterised by detached dwellings of varied design mostly dating from the 1920-50's set within an attractive tree- lined setting. The property falls within Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) and is described within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as follows.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and 3 representations were received including a letter from the Park Langley Residents Association (PLRA) which can be summarised as follows:

 PLRA - proposed development should be consistent with Unitary Development Plan Policies and should satisfy the reasons for which previous applications were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. . The daylight report acknowledges that the proposal fails to meet the relevant standards and this should be taken into account when the application is being determined.  No.88 - Current plans will make a difference in terms of the amount of light coming into the kitchen due to bulk of building proposed  There is no technical sunlight/ daylight report submitted to support applicants agents contention regarding impact on light  Our house was purchased in 1978 when the ground floor extension had already been built  The blind in the kitchen is not lowered most of the time  Original design had regard to the effect it would have on natural light to the kitchen hence the catslide roof.  The proposed extension still significantly encroaches on natural light reaching the kitchen

Page 108  The kitchen is the hub of the house and also a working environment where natural light is necessary  Application does not fully address the issues raised in the appeal decision  The application should consider a dormer window on the other side  No.92 - the rear extension is an intrusion and creates a visual barrier, the increased frontage dominates neighbouring buildings  The report does not address the overwhelming effect on the view from the kitchen  No contact was made from the report authors in order to gain access to our house so as ascertain specific use of neighbouring spaces  Light coming into our kitchen window is shown as marginal and falls out side of recommended threshold, in these circumstances we assume our kitchen will not have the proper amount of light coming into it  There is a lot of speculation and guesswork contained within the report  A mock-up of the proposed development should have been included in the report

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

In considering the application the main policies are H10, H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Policy H10 concerns Areas of Special Residential Character, applications in these areas will be required to respect and complement the established and individual qualities of the area.

Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

The most recent appeal decision regarding this site relates to a very similar proposal for a first floor side and rear extension under planning ref. 13/00771.

The Inspector concluded that without a detailed daylight / sunlight report it would not be possible to properly assess the impact of the proposed extension on kitchen window of No.88.

Page 109 The principle issues in this case are whether the current scheme complies with the main policies quoted above and also whether the new proposal addresses and overcomes the issues set out by the Inspector in dismissing the previous proposal.

The main difference between with the current application as compared to the previous application under planning ref. 13/00771 is the staggered first floor building line. This increases the flank to flank separation between the application property and No.88 in the middle section of the extension. The front and rear sections in terms of distance to the boundary remain the same.

In support of the proposal the applicant's agent sets out the following points:

 The design seeks to enhance the street elevation by adding a gable which provides symmetry and balance to front the elevation  The 'kitchen ' at No.88 cannot be considered a kitchen diner as it is too small  Submitted drawing show angles of light which exist which could be used to make a proper judgement of the impact on kitchen at No.88.

Under planning ref. 13/03290, a further application is currently being considered. This proposal is also for a first floor side/ rear extension and is a variation of the current application proposing a side space of 2.15m and flank to flank separation to No. 88 of 4.25m.

The daylight & sunlight assessment was carried out specifically in relation to plan No. 2K13/02/2/3 which accompanied application 13/03290. This proposal is for a very similar albeit slightly larger scale of development than currently being considered. Having regard for guidance contained within Site layout Planning for daylight & sunlight,(BRE 2011) and BS8206-2 Code of practice for skylighting (2008). Detailed survey results are contained within the report. In broad terms the report assessed 3 aspects of light: sunlight, daylight and amenity space.

Sunlight- (Annual Probable Sunlight Hours) the amount of sunshine hours a window should receive (25%) The subject window fell short of the recommended winter sunlight hours

Amenity space - The amenity space surpassed the recommended amount of sunlight hours.

Page 110 The executive summary of the report concludes that the majority of the rooms comfortably fulfil the guidance requirements and the "proposals accord with the intent and context of planning guidance…"

Planning History

03/01919/FULL1 Single storey side/rear extension and single storey rear extension for conservatory (amendment to scheme permitted under ref. 02/01238, alteration to roof design) PER 03.07.2003

10/02118/FULL First floor side extension REF 07.03.2011

11/03032/FULL First floor side and rear extension REF 21.03.2012

13/00771/FULL First floor side and rear extension REF 06.06.2013

13/03290/FULL First floor front/side and rear extension PDE

Conclusions

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 13/03395,13/03290, 13/00771, 11/03032 and 10/02118, set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

Page 111 as amended by documents received on 11.03.2014

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, in line with Policies BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 4 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) north-western first floor side and rear ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1

Page 112 Application:13/03395/FULL6 Address: 90 Malmains Way Beckenham BR3 6SF

Proposal: First floor side and rear extension

ta S

ub 4 1 S El

SE RI E RN U 7 O 1 AB a BR

2 6

2 6 E L W I 0 L 2

2 9 W A Y

2 9

M A L

4 7 A I N S 8 7

W 4

0 A 1

Y 3 3

1 3

0 9 1 7

8 8

1 0

W 9 O 1

O 9 3 0 D M 75 E 2 R 3 63.6m E W

Y 8

4 9

0 3

5 7 2

61.9m

Y PARK LANGLEY A W Y

0 H 4 S U 8

B 3 5

47 8

2 4

45 61.3m y d B rd F a C

4 2 4

6 5

2 3 a 3 61.5m D A O

5 D 3 O O W D L IE F 1:1,910 N R A B "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n113d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.16

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 14/00040/FULL6 Ward: Chislehurst

Address : Scathebury 47 Holbrook Lane Chislehurst BR7 6PE

OS Grid Ref: E: 545010 N: 169863

Applicant : Mr S Taylor Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Swimming pool in paved terrace with change and gym below in basement

Key designations: Conservation Area: Chislehurst Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds Sites of Interest for Nat. Conservation

Proposal

 The proposal seeks permission for a large excavation of the rear garden to provide a swimming pool, staircases to link the different land levels and a basement level to provide a gym and shower room. The overall length of the structure will be 17.5m and the width 15m. The structure will be sited 4m from the northern flank boundary and 3.6m from the southern flank boundary.  The rear section of the pool and platform behind it will be on slightly raised land, higher than ground level towards the rear of the site. The site also slopes from one side to the other downhill from south to north, with the structure sunken slightly to one side of the site (southern) and elevated slightly to the other (northern).

Location

The site is located on the eastern side of Holbrook Lane and comprises a large detached two storey dwelling. The area is characterised by similar detached dwellings set within spacious plots. To the north is a residential care home and the area falls within the Chislehurst Conservation Area.

Page 115 Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations are summarised as follows:

 insufficient plans  visual impact and over-development of the site  impact on character of the conservation area  noise and disturbance to neighbouring dwelling and care home

Comments from Consultees

APCA did not inspect the application.

Thames Water raises no objections to the application subject to conditions.

No technical drainage objections are raised.

No Environmental Health (Pollution) objections are raised.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas BE14 Trees In Conservation Areas NE7 Development And Trees

London Plan Policy 5.13 (Sustainable Drainage)

The National Planning Policy Framework

The Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Chislehurst Conservation Area is also a consideration.

Planning History

Planning permission was granted under ref. 12/03983 for a part one/two storey rear extension, roof alterations to incorporate front and rear dormer extensions, creation of basement area and elevational alterations.

Planning permission was granted under ref. 13/03062 for roof alterations to garage to include gable roof extension and elevational alterations.

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the Chislehurst Conservation Area, the impact on the setting of the

Page 116 adjacent locally listed building and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. The impact on trees is also a consideration.

The proposal would not be considered to have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal will not have a large bulk due to the structure being sited largely underground and the appearance of the swimming pool and staircases would complement the building. The structure will be sited away from public areas of the Conservation Area and the remaining area of garden that would be retained would be large. Subject to the use of suitable materials, the proposal would not impact harmfully on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Likewise, the structure will not impact harmfully on the setting of the locally listed building. The pool will be sited some 10m from the rear elevation of Scathebury and given that the building will not project significantly above ground level, the structure would not impact on views to the main building or the general setting of Scathebury.

The swimming pool will provide a basement that will house a gym and shower room, with access from the eastern (rear) elevation which is on lower land. Although some of the building will project above ground level, the proposal is not considered to result in any significant visual impact or overlooking to neighbouring residential properties due to its separation from neighbouring houses and the level of screening along the boundaries. It is accepted that the proposal may create some noise and disturbance, however this is not considered discernibly different from any other use of a private garden and on balance could not be considered a reasonable reason to warrant refusal. The use of the garden for a particular activity is not in itself a reason to refuse planning permission, provided that the use is incidental to the enjoyment of the house. Similarly the raised area will be 30cm above the land level at the boundary to Cardinal Close and will not afford clear views to neighbouring gardens.

Having had regard to the above it is considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it will not result in a detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area, the setting of the adjacent locally listed building and will not harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties. No significant impact on trees will result. It is therefore recommended that Members grant planning permission.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 12/03983, 13/03062 and 14/00040, set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 26.02.2014

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

Page 117 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC07 Materials as set out in application ACC07R Reason C07 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the conservation area and the amenities of the nearby residential properties. 4 The structure hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes incidental to the residential use of the main house and for no other purpose. Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interests of the residential amenities of the conservation area and the character of the conservation area. 5 The materials excavated during the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be removed from the site and not used to alter the land levels of the site as existing. Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interests of the residential amenities of the area and the character of the conservation area. 6 The swimming pool hereby permitted shall be emptied only overnight and in dry periods. The discharge rate shall be controlled such that it does not exceed a flow rate of 5 litres per second into the public sewer network. Reason: In order to minimise the risk of flooding of the site and surrounding area.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 The applicant is advised that they should incorporate within the proposal protection to the property by installing for example a non-return valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions.

2 Any property involving a swimming pool with a volume exceeding 10 cubic metres pf water will need metering. The applicant should contact Thames Water on 0845 9200 800.

3 The applicant is advised that the proposed swimming pool should not be emptied in the public foul sewer.

Page 118 Application:14/00040/FULL6 Address: Scathebury 47 Holbrook Lane Chislehurst BR7 6PE

Proposal: Swimming pool in paved terrace with change and gym below in basement

1:3,160 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n119d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.17

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 14/00088/FULL6 Ward: Bickley

Address : 8 Wessex Court 15 Bickley Road Bickley Bromley BR1 2ND

OS Grid Ref: E: 542026 N: 169013

Applicant : Mr Paul Hallowes Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Erection of a single storey side extension with accommodation in the roof space and conversion of existing garage to habitable accommodation.

Key designations:

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey side extension with accommodation in the roof space and conversion of existing garage to habitable accommodation.

Location

The application property comprises a recently constructed two storey detached dwellinghouse located on the southern side of Bickley Road. The application site is neither listed nor within a conservation area.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and as of the date of this report, 3 objections were received, which are summarised as follows:

 view from 2 Wessex Court and most others would be adversely affected and claustrophobic (addressed in conclusion below); and

Page 121  proposal would create a disproportionate footprint between land and building, imbalance between #8 and #9 and utilise the sole expanse of grass at the rear of the close (addressed in conclusion below);  proposal will intrude on privacy of 17 Bickley Road (addressed in conclusion below;  original permission granted on proviso of no further building on site; and  owners of 8 Wessex Court have entered into a restrictive covenant not to develop the site without the consent, which has not been given (this is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration).

Comments from Consultees

Highways: No objection subject standard condition relating to satisfactory parking being maintained.

Drainage: No objection subject to standard condition relating to surface water drainage.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions T3 Parking

The following Council adopted SPG guidance are also a consideration:

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 General Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance 2 Residential Design Principles

The above policies are considered consistent with the objectives and principles of the NPPF.

Planning History

2012: Outline planning application (ref. 11/03300) granted for two/three storey block comprising 7 two/three bedroom flats and 2 two storey five bedroom dwellings with associated car parking, cycle and bin stores and access onto Bickley Road.

2013: Non-material amendment (ref. 11/03300) refused for elevational alterations and roof alteration.

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the surrounding area, the impact that it would have on the amenities of

Page 122 the occupants of surrounding residential properties and the impact that it would have on parking and the highway.

When considered in the context of the larger host building, the side extension will still retain a sense of subordination, be sensitively designed and not unduly harm the streetscene or surrounding area, particularly as it does not front the highway and is set back behind a larger block of flats. In addition, the proposal is not considered to result in an overdevelopment of the site given the large garden to the rear as well as the separation that will remain between the host building and neighbouring properties.

With regard to the adjoining properties to the north (1-7 Wessex Court), the side extension will be single storey, viewed within the context of the larger host building and result in the removal of the existing first floor window that faces these properties. Therefore, the proposal will not unduly harm the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of those adjoining properties to the north over and above the existing environment. A condition is recommended restricting the insertion of any windows in the northern flank elevation to maintain privacy for the adjoining residents to the north.

With regard to the adjoining property to the west (9 Wessex Court), the separation distance and acute viewing angle will mean that no undue harm to the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of that property will result. It is also noted that no objection has been received from this adjoining property.

With regard to the adjoining property to the southeast (2 Bayliss Place), it is elevated in relation to the application site, has a large flank wall on the boundary and the only window in that flank appears to be obscure glazed and serve a bathroom. It is also noted that no objection has been received from this adjoining property.

With regard to the adjoining property to the northeast (17 Bickley Road), given the separation distance between the properties, the existing boundary treatment of tall, mature trees as well as the detached garage, the proposal will not result in undue harm to the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of that adjoining property.

The existing garage is being converted into a habitable room and a new double garage proposed as part of the side extension and therefore, no loss of parking. It is also noted that the Highways Department has no objection to the proposal.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the siting, size and design of the proposal is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of

Page 123 amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the surrounding area or parking and the highway.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 14/00088, 11/03300 and 11/03300, set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area. 3 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 4 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 5 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt AED02R Reason D02 6 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) northern development ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1

Page 124 Application:14/00088/FULL6 Address: 8 Wessex Court 15 Bickley Road Bickley Bromley BR1 2ND

Proposal: Erection of a single storey side extension with accommodation in the roof space and conversion of existing garage to habitable

accommodation. 5

72.2m

The Vane

1 8

71.5m

B IC K LE Y Brooklands R O A

1 D

4 a

Tudor Oaks

e c la P s li 72.2m y a

0 1

a 8

Tall Pines

R D HEATH PARK DRIVE

H 2 3

D 5

1 2

SE D CLO WOO WEST

27 25 E 23b AN 23a H L EAT E H

1:1AG,320

3 P 1 2

19 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site71 .a0m n125d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.18

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 14/00293/FULL6 Ward: Bromley Common And Keston

Address : 5 Lakes Road Keston BR2 6BN

OS Grid Ref: E: 541343 N: 164502

Applicant : Mr Gary Wookey Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer extension

Key designations:

Areas of Archaeological Significance Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London Loop

Proposal

The application proposes a rear dormer. The dormer will be set back 200mm from the eaves, approximately 400m from each boundary and approximately 500mm lower than the existing ridge line. There are two existing rooflights to the rear which will be removed to facilitate the proposal. The plans show the existing loft space is used as a bedroom and the proposed dormer will enable an increased habitable area.

Location

The site is a mid-terrace two storey dwelling house located on the north side of Lakes Road, adjacent to a Conservation Area.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received, summarised as follows (the full text is available on file for viewing):

 noise from works creating disturbance  damage to adjacent property  out of character

Page 127  detrimental visual impact  overshadowing - will not get light into velux in the event one is placed in the adjacent roof space  concerns re weight of proposed dormer on single brick wall  without prejudice, in the event of a planning permission conditions are requested

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the NPPF, the London Plan and the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

H8 Residential Extensions BE1 Design of New Development BE13 Conservation Areas - Development Adjacent to a Conservation Area

SPG1 SPG2

Planning History

A Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for the insertion of rooflights to the front and rear, under planning ref. 13/00912.

Conclusions

Objections are raised in respect of overshadowing, noise and damage as well as to the detrimental visual impact of the proposed dormer.

There do not appear to be other rear dormers in the vicinity and whilst therefore this will appear unusual in its setting the visual impact is unlikely to be considered such as to warrant a planning ground of refusal. It is the case that rear dormers are a generally acceptable feature within a suburban setting, many of which are built as permitted development. Policy BE13 expects development proposals to preserve or enhance views into or out the Conservation Area; the dormer is set to the rear and is not considered to impact on the adjacent Conservation Area.

It is recognised that objections raised in respect of building works and noise are of legitimate concern to the neighbours but cannot be addressed under the provisions of planning legislation; noise issues arising as the result of any works are considered by Environmental Health and concerns raised in respect of the actual construction and its safety are considered under the Building Regulations.

It is therefore considered that the proposed rear dormer is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area.

Page 128 Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref(s) set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC01R Reason C01

Page 129 Application:14/00293/FULL6 Address: 5 Lakes Road Keston BR2 6BN

Proposal: Roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer extension

The Greyhound (PH)

7 KESTON 1

1 Garage E 1 RIV 2 LL D DMI

WIN 2

1a 25

LAKES ROAD

El Sub Sta 4

4 1 1

1 6

6 1:640 1 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n130d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.19

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 14/00493/FULL1 Ward: Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 52 Queensway Petts Wood Orpington BR5 1EA

OS Grid Ref: E: 544454 N: 167450

Applicant : Shell UK Retail Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Demolition of sales building and carwash and erection of new sales building and revised car parking layout.

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Local Distributor Roads Open Space Deficiency Secondary Shopping Frontage

Proposal

Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing sales building and carwash and erect a new sales building. A revised car parking layout is also proposed.

Planning permission is sought for various works to the site, including the following:

 replacement sales building to the rear of the site  alteration to car parking and traffic flow layout  removal of existing car wash building  general upgrade of pump and other equipment  de-linking of existing canopy from new sales building

Location

The site is located on the eastern side of Queensway and comprises a petrol station with car wash and forecourt. The site falls within the Petts Wood Town Centre and is bound to the north by a supermarket and to the south and west by residential development. The railway borders the site to the east.

Page 131 Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 general noise and disturbance of building works

Comments from Consultees

The Council Highways Engineer raised no objection to the proposal.

No technical drainage comments have been made.

The Environment Agency has raised no objections.

Network Rail has commented that although there is no objection to the application, the applicant should demonstrate that the building can be maintained in the future, bearing in mind the close proximity to the boundary. The applicant has submitted information to demonstrate this and no concern is raised by Network Rail.

No comments have been received from Environmental Health however further comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development S8 Petrol Filling Stations

The National Planning Policy Framework

Planning History

There is an extensive planning history at the site, however the most recent relating to the redevelopment of existing petrol station to provide enlarged forecourt sales/office building, revised pump island and canopy arrangement, provision of customer car parking, removal of existing car wash, hot wash and vacuum facilities and forecourt demarcation of delivery areas/keep clear zones was granted in 2004 under ref .04/00585.

Conclusions

Page 132 This site has been in use as a petrol filling station for many years. This proposal seeks to re-develop the site with the replacement of the existing sales building to the east of the site, the detachment of the existing canopy, upgraded equipment and the removal of the existing car wash building at the north of the site. The principal users of the site will remain as be passing motorists.

Regarding the replacement sales building, it is noted that the overall size of this will be increased from the existing structure, with a wider building occupying the entire eastern end of the site. It is considered that these proposed alterations will not lead to a loss of amenity to neighbouring residential properties, with a suitable separation retained to the nearest dwelling at No. 50 Queensway to the south. Although the new structure will be sited adjoining the boundary with No. 50, the visual impact would not be significant, with the overall height of 4.7m considered acceptable in light of the 20m separation. In terms of the impact to the character of the area, it is not considered that the increase in scale would result in a negative impact.

Turning to the other works proposed, the re-configuration of the site and new equipment would be unlikely to unduly affect the character of the area in view of the existing use and appearance of the site. The resultant situation would not be significantly different from that which exists at present. It is not considered that these elements would be likely to result in a loss of amenity to local residents for the same reasons.

From a highway safety perspective, the proposal is not considered to result in any significant difference in the way in which vehicles use the site. Traffic levels will remain similar and access, exist and parking arrangements are considered suitable.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area. No impact on highway safety would result. It is therefore recommended that Members grant planning permission.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 04/00585 and 14/00493 set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC07 Materials as set out in application ACC07R Reason C07 3 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 4 ACH27 Arrangements for construction period

Page 133 ACH27R Reason H27 5 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29 6 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of the nearby residential properties.

INFORMATIVE(S)

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

2 The applicant is advised that any alterations to the signage of the building and site in general will require Advertisement Consent.

3 Before works commence, the Applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Environmental Health & Trading Standards regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Applicant should also ensure compliance with the Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites Code of Practice 2008 which is available on the Bromley web site.

4 If during the works on site any suspected contamination is encountered, Environmental Health should be contacted immediately. The contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Authority for approval in writing.

Page 134 Application:14/00493/FULL1 Address: 52 Queensway Petts Wood Orpington BR5 1EA

Proposal: Demolition of sales building and carwash and erection of new sales building and revised car parking layout.

2 4

D a y I l ( n i 6 H n g 2 o h 1 t 1 9 e t l) 1a

3 80.6m 1

1 1 3 Q 0 2 Adams 3

U 4

1 3 House

1 E 2 1 C E 3 S

N h T

9 S a A

0 T 1 W t TCB s IO

A w N PCs

7 Y 0 o S

1 r Q

t U 2

5 h A

1 R P 1 3 E LB a 3 TCB

a 1

2 d 5

2 9

3 1

t o

83.8m 5 7 PO

0 o

t 1

1 P 3 O FB L Posts 1 S 9 1 1 7

1 4 S 1 to 4 81.5m L R F i A c Victoria Works e IR

9 P W 8 1 a H r A

C 8

d Y

A o

O t e

PR 1 P A T ES Car Park

W 8

P e t t

5 7 W o 3 82.0m o 1 d S t

a t 4

io 1

1 7 2

P e t t 3 s 7 W

5 o

b 4 o

1 d 7 t o

7 S

5 0 t 2 6 a 1 t io

n 1 TCB l ya n o io R g e Le Th sh ub iti Cl Br 80.8m

5 F 5 2 A

5 IR W A Filling Y L

a Station 0

k 3 5 e H s a w ll o o Church d Petts Wood 2 Station

e Redmays 1 79.9m Q U E Villa E N May a S St b W 2 u A l S Y 4

E 0

5 MP 12.75 4

10 1

3 2

78.9m SL 3 S

3 ig n a

1 G 3 a n t r 2 y 2 1 2 6

75.2m

2 9

5 1

4 3

4 7

49 1

5 1 78.1m

E S

3 1:1,860

7 L

C 5 1 6 4 E R E M 2 S

N A "This plan is providedR to identify the location of the site and T Page 135 should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.20

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 14/00506/FULL6 Ward: Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : 14 Pondfield Road Hayes Bromley BR2 7HS

OS Grid Ref: E: 539437 N: 166312

Applicant : Mr Ian O'Leary Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Part one/two storey side/rear extension and part conversion of garage to habitable accommodation and elevational alterations

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Open Space Deficiency

Proposal

The application seeks permission for a part one/two storey side/rear extension and part conversion of garage to habitable accommodation and elevational alterations. The rear extension will span the full width of the existing property and have a stepped rear elevation similar to that of the current rear of the property. The element adjacent to the boundary with no. 16 will be single storey and retain a side space of 1.15m to the boundary and project 3.35m from the rear of the existing property. This single storey rear element will have a flat roof with a height of 3.2m and a roof lantern in the middle of the roof projecting a maximum 0.5m above the flat roof. The element adjacent to the boundary with no. 12 will be part one/two storey. The single storey element will project 4m from the rear of the existing attached garage along the boundary with no. 12. This single storey rear element will have a flat roof with a height of 3.3m. The two storey element will project a maximum 3.7m, when scaled from the submitted drawing, from the rear of the existing property and wrap around the side elevation atop the existing single storey attached garage with a projection of 1.344m from the side wall. The two storey element will be set 7.6m from the front building line and retain a side space of 1.516m from the first floor flank wall to the boundary with no. 12. The two storey rear extension will be set 5.9m way from the boundary with no. 16. No windows are proposed in the flank walls of the extension. One new window is shown and the relocation of an existing window are shown on the first floor south-east flank

Page 137 elevation of the existing house facing no. 12. One new first floor window and one new ground floor window is shown on the north-west flank elevation of the existing house facing no. 16. The existing attached garage is also shown to be part converted into habitable accommodation for use as a toilet.

Location

The application site is a two storey detached property on the north-eastern side of Pondfield Road, Hayes. The road consists of large detached residential properties with a small cluster of single storey detached bungalows at the end of the cul de sac.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.

Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Comments from Consultees

Highways have raised no objections as there is sufficient space to park at least two cars in the drive.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Guidance 2 Residential Design Guidance

The London Plan and National Planning Policy Framework are also key considerations in determination of this application.

The above policies are considered to be consistent with the principles and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning History

Planning permission was granted for a Two storey rear extension under ref: 04/02325/FULL6.

Conclusions

Page 138 The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

The application is for a part one/two storey side/rear extension. The single storey element of the proposal spans the full width of the property and projects to the rear. Adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring property at no. 16, the extension will project 3.35m with a flat roof of a height of 3.2m. This part of the single storey extension will be 1.15m from the side boundary. The two storey rear element of the proposal will be 6m from the side boundary with no. 16. Given this separation the part one/two storey extension is not considered to cause any significant harm to the amenities of the occupiers of no. 16. Along the boundary with the opposite neighbouring property at no. 12 the single storey rear element will project 4m with flat roof of a height of 3.3m. Due to the stepped nature of the existing rear elevation, the two storey element will project a maximum 3.7m from the rear of the existing property. At first floor level the extension will wrap around the side elevation approximately 1.6m in length and 1.344m in depth (from the side wall). The two storey side/rear extension will retain a side space of 1.516m from the first floor flank wall to the boundary with no. 12. It is noted that the property at no. 12 currently benefits from a single storey attached garage and as such there is further separation from the side boundary to the main dwellinghouse at no.12. Furthermore no windows are proposed in the flank elevation of the extension. No. 12 currently benefits from one first floor window in the middle of the flank wall facing no. 14.

As noted above the proposal will project at first floor level to the side of the property, atop the existing single storey attached garage. Accordingly policy H9 which refers to side space should be considered. Whilst the extension at first floor will retain a side space of 1.516m, the existing attached garage at single storey level abuts the boundary with no. 12. Policy H9 refers to a minimum of 1m for the full height and length of the flank wall as such this first floor side element of the proposal would be contrary to policy. However, the main concerns of this policy is to in order to safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents and prevent a cramped appearance from occurring. The first floor element will be set 7.6m from the front building and will sit much lower than the main ridge height, with over 1metre separation to the side boundary. Thus, it is considered that the extension will look subservient to the main dwelling when viewed from the streetscene and retain adequate space at first floor level so as to not cause a cramped appearance or terracing effect. Members may therefore consider that given the orientation and separation between the properties, the proposed extension will not cause any significant harm to the residential amenities of the neighbouring property at no. 12 in terms of loss of light, privacy or outlook, nor the character of the area or streetscene in general.

With regards to the proposed windows in the north-west and south-east elevations of the existing property, the windows at first floor at shown to serve bathrooms and a hallway and as such Member's may consider it to be acceptable to condition these windows to be obscure glazed and non-opening in order to further protect the privacy of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties. The proposed new

Page 139 window at ground floor is not considered to cause any significant harm to the amenities of the neighbouring property at no. 16.

The loss of a parking space by way of the part conversion of the garage is not considered to result in a harmful impact upon on-street parking levels due to there being sufficient space to park at least two cars within the curtilage of the property.

Having had regard to the above it Member's may consider that on balance the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref. 14/00506, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed window(s) in the first floor north-western and south-eastern elevations shall be obscure glazed to a minimum of privacy level 3 and shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above floor of the room in which the window is installed and shall subsequently be permanently retained as such. Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties. 4 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) flank extensions ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1 5 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason

Page 140 Application:14/00506/FULL6 Address: 14 Pondfield Road Hayes Bromley BR2 7HS

Proposal: Part one/two storey side/rear extension and part conversion of

garage to habitable accommodation and elevational alterations

1 1

6 3 H ILL DOW N R

OAD 7

2 1

3 6 Tennis Courts

3 0 30

2 8

2 26 1

2 E

4 1 U 5 N E V A S D N A

5 T 2 R U O C

2 0

7 1

ft ro ec n P

to O

S N

e 2 h w D BS 5 T lo a F g I n E u L B D R O A D

1 0 d a e M

e h 9 T

s n o s e e L

e ty le b m ra B re o d le k ic M e c n re H w a A L Y t E S S M E A e D id s R y 2 O a W t A n D o lf 6 a h 3 C

e n e LB rd

e t 1 s e 48 W

a 61.5m 48

50 L HIL HAYES

52 0a 5 4 7 4

5 El Sub Sta 1:1,280 2 3

H 7 AYES HILL "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n141d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.21

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 14/00540/FULL1 Ward: Copers Cope

Address : 22 Southend Road Beckenham BR3 1SD

OS Grid Ref: E: 537534 N: 170071

Applicant : Mr Justin Powl Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Demolition of existing detached garage and erection of three storey side extension and conversion of building to 3 one bedroom and 4 two bedroom flats.

Key designations: Conservation Area: Southend Road Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Local Cycle Network Local Cycle Network London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds London Distributor Roads Open Space Deficiency

Proposal

Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing detached garage and the erection of a three storey side extension and conversion of the building into 3 one bedroom and 4 two bedroom flats.

The extension has a width of 5.9m to the front elevation and 4.9m to the rear. There is a projection of 2.3m to the rear. Two self-contained one bedroom flats are set within the extension with the first floor accommodating three bedrooms for use as part of two flats at first floor level within the main building.

Location

The application site is set to the eastern edge of Southend Road with the northern boundary being to Foxgrove Road. The site features a four storey semi-detached dwelling. The site is within the Southend Road Conservation Area.

Comments from Local Residents

Page 143 Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 the proposal will be of a good appearance to meet demand for small units  more vehicles will result in around the address  insufficient parking  already a dangerous and busy junction  should be retained as a single dwelling  extension is harmful to the listed entrance to Beckenham Place Park  a gross overdevelopment and a degradation of the conservation area

Comments from Consultees

Street Trees have raised concerns about the adjoining tree to Foxgrove Road but consider an appropriate condition suitable to mitigate any harm and no objections are raised.

Thames Water have no objections

APCA object on the grounds that the proposal needs to conform with the design of the façade of the existing building.

Highways have commented that the site has a PTAL score of 4 (out of a possible 6, where 6 represents very high levels of public transport accessibility) and that not all the occupiers' one bedroom flats will own a car, considering the availability of public transport and on street parking on the neighbouring streets the development would not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network. No objection is therefore raised.

From a conservation perspective, no objection is raised and the conservation area is not considered to be harmed.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas BE14 Trees in Conservation Areas H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space NE7 Development and Trees T3 Parking T18 Road Safety

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 and 2 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Southend Road Conservation Area

Page 144 London Plan Policies:

3.4 Optimising Housing Potential 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments 7.4 Local Character 7.6 Architecture 7.8 Heritage Assets 7.21 Trees and Woodlands

The Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing

The National Planning Policy Framework, with which the above policies are considered to be in accordance.

Planning History

There are no applications for development to the application dwelling, however the following are considered of relevance:

Application reference 02/01446 refused permission for two semi-detached three storey dwellings at the rear of Nos. 20 and 22 on the grounds that:

1. "The proposal would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of the amount of site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces, out of character with the pattern of development within the Conservation Area and the locality in general and thereby contrary to Policies E.1, E.7 and H.2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, Policies BE1, BE9 and H6 of the first deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001) and Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Southend Road Conservation Area."

2. "If permitted, the proposed development would lead to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the Southend Road Conservation Area is currently developed, thereby contrary to Policies H.2, E.1 and E.7 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6, BE1 and BE9 of the first deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001)."

This was later dismissed at appeal.

Application reference 05/02506 refused permission for a detached two storey four bedroom dwelling to the land at the rear of Nos. 20 and 22 on the grounds that:

1. "The proposal would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of proximity to the flank boundaries of the site and the amount of site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces, which would be out of character with the pattern of development within the Southend Road Conservation Area and the locality in general and thereby contrary to Policies E.1, E.7 and H.2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, Policies BE1, BE9 and H6 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002),

Page 145 Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Southend Road Conservation Area and Policies 4B.1 and 4B.7 of the London Plan."

2. "The proposed development would lead to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the Southend Road Conservation Area is currently developed, thereby contrary to Policies E.1, E.7 and H.2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, Policies BE1, BE9 and H6 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002), Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Southend Road Conservation Area and Policies 4B.1 and 4B.7 of the London Plan."

This was also later dismissed at appeal.

A detached garage was permitted to the side of the dwelling in 1970 (70/01993).

20 Southend Road

The adjoining property at No.20 has benefitted from planning permission for a single storey rear extension with terrace and the creation of a new self-contained 2 bedroom flat under application 12/02474. A single storey rear extension was also permitted under application 93/00848.

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the conservation area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

The existing semi-detached dwelling is proposed to be extended and converted into seven flats arranged over four floors. The extension itself is three storeys in height and projects beyond the rear elevation. It is noted that No.20 benefits from a two storey side extension, most likely Edwardian, and that other similar properties on this row of dwellings have been extended to a variety of heights. As such the side extension in itself is not considered to be out of character with the area or the host dwelling.

The proposed flats are considered to be of a good size and would provide suitable levels of accommodation for the intended occupants in terms of size, circulation and daylight. Parking is to be provided at a level of four spaces and the Council's highways officer has raised no objection to this provision, which given its location and proximity to transport links is within the stipulated parking standards.

The extension would allow for a side space of 1.1m at ground floor level and 2.4m to the upper floors. Policy H9 requires a minimum of 1m to be provided for such development and higher levels of separation for corner properties such as this site. At ground level the development would replace a single storey garage that occupies part of the proposed footprint with the exception of being to the boundary and as such the setting on of the ground floor element to allow in excess of 1m is considered an improvement. The 2.4m to the upper floors is considered sufficient to comply with the requirement for higher levels of separation for such sites.

Page 146 The introduction of such built form would impact upon the character of the conservation area by way of occupying the currently open northern boundary. However, this northern boundary forms the end of the conservation area, with Foxgrove Road north of this laying outside, and the conservation area to the west and north west, whilst affected, is of a generously open nature and it is not considered that such an extension would have such an impact upon the defining characteristic of spaciousness to warrant refusal.

Although the proposed extension is three storeys and the historic addition to No.20 is two storeys in size, it is not considered that this would result in an unbalancing affect upon the pair of semis and their architectural merit. The extension at No.20, although one less storey, has a much higher roof which results in a degree of bulk commensurate to that proposed.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref. 14/00540 set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACB02 Trees - protective fencing ACB02R Reason B02 5 ACB12 Tree - details of excav. for foundations ACB12R Reason B12 6 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01 7 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 8 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason 9 ACH02 Satisfactory parking - no details submit ACH02R Reason H02 10 ACH04 Size of parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04 11 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 12 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 13 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32

INFORMATIVE(S)

Page 147 1 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

Page 148 Application:14/00540/FULL1 Address: 22 Southend Road Beckenham BR3 1SD

Proposal: Demolition of existing detached garage and erection of three storey side extension and conversion of building to 3 one bedroom and 4 two bedroom flats.

S 6 O to e 3 1 ov As U r hfo xg r T t d H Fo ur o H use Co 1 E 11 2 N D Tennis Courts 1 Tennis Court 2 9 3 3

R 0 1 0 7 4 O 1to5 Dov 8 5 A er H D The Dell ou 6 Ro 40.5m se mne

Ho y

use 6

o t Tennis Court 4 4 o t 6 K 1

o R t

3 3 A

P o

Pembury t E 1 C Cottage House Nursing A L

P Tennis Courts

7 Home

4 1 M 9 A 1 2 H 8 1 N 1 1 Minster 1 1 E 4 2 K House t C o 3 E M

6 1 A B YW 2 O M 9 1 1 O 0 D

t a

9 o 6 C

l 3 3 Boxley l L i a O A n t S House S E B g b 3 B u H 7 Pa 8 S v E ili o l on

Y E u 5

6 t

4 s o A e 42.5m R 4 5 Bearstead K 6 1

House 1

3 t

1 o

1 A 2 BB Magnolia House EY Stanhope PA 4 R t K o Cottage T 6 o H n Bapel 1 o b

u r 1 i 1 s Court 2 d Kirkstone e 1 g t o 12 3 9 e 3 7 10 8 7 4 8 5 Bra 6 dso Tennis Courts 1 le 1 H 1 1 The Spinney o 2 use 40.5m The Linden S 2 a 9 1 W n 0 Kimberley es two d Lodge Ho od g Two Elms us a e t e 3 7 8 1 H

o 4 9

u El 5 8 s

e 4 3 Cricket Ground Sub Sta 5 6

4 o t 6 r 2 e v l e

u s c u

1 e o o t R H 3 Monalee Tall Trees 41.6m 4 1 to El Sub Sta to 6 3

Park Keep The Lodge

e 38.2m v 1 to 7 o 9 r e to 15 P g g a x d v o o i

F 17 l

L io

1 3 n

41.2m

19 t o 1 24 2

10 6

o 1 t 8 1 43.2m

1 to 9 7 2

South Park 2

Minshull Place Court 2 Beaver 44.7m

Court

9 o t 1 de Pavely FOX

House Chalfont GROVE

2 ROAD

4 House

2 4

2 3 8

1 3 1

o o 3 t t

1 4

6 1

9 5

PARK

WOOD

o t

5 1

1 Queens Court 4

2 El Sub Sta

41.2m t

4 o 1 5 to

1 1to6 0 Osprey El Sub Sta 2 6 10 Court to

6 3 8 Vivian Court

1 e 1 2 L 1 l

C a 3 Corinne 1 d

S r 1 Langdale 1 Court F 1 to 10 e

1 t

to 6

1 o 0 t

1 a O 5 Oaklands

e R 7

41.6m D

2 6

t o

t 1

1 to 19 E 1 1 R 9 Berwick Court 11 13

1 1 Douglas House t

S u

O 1 1 3 8

o 3 Be

9 ck

U enh 5 a

Supermarket 3 m

C Co T 1

2 urt

H 4 2 0

m 0 3

5 E

1 4 a 9 4 2 T N HE AVE

h NU D E

n e 6

R k

O c

A 1

e to 12

D 28 B

4 1 2 to 12

1 18 9 12

Station 1 4 to 6

t Glenmore Buildings o

6 Lodge 2

1 Kestrel Court Deanson Court

CA E NTER El BU S RY CL OSE Sub Sta O

2 L

C 7 2

R I

TCB A F

A 3 1

M 1 1:2,130

t 5 SL r 2

MP 8. u 75 o

FB t o

1 C 2

. r 7 i

m a

a "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n149d M should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.22

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 14/00974/FULL6 Ward: Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 1 Petts Wood Road Petts Wood Orpington BR5 1JT

OS Grid Ref: E: 545482 N: 167827

Applicant : Mr & Mrs Mark and Lisa Cheverton Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Single storey side/rear extension

Key designations:

Area of Special Residential Character Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Local Distributor Roads Open Space Deficiency

Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a single storey side/rear extension which would project 3.6 metres to the rear with a flat roof design, and 2.8m to the side with a hipped roof design. The flat roofed rear extension would measure 3m in height with a higher central roof lantern, whilst the hipped roof of the side extension would be a maximum 3.7m in height.

The front wall of the extension would be set back 0.3m from the front elevation of the dwelling, and the side extension would maintain a 1m separation to the eastern side boundary with No.1A.

Location

This site is located on the southern side of Petts Wood Road and is occupied by a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a detached single storey garage located to the rear. The property is located within Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character.

Comments from Local Residents

Page 151 Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received from the occupier of No.1A Petts Wood Road who is concerned that the amendments have not materially changed the proposals, and states that her original objections regarding the close proximity of the extension to the side boundary, and the resulting loss of privacy to the rear garden of 1A would remain.

Comments from Consultees

With regard to highways issues, the application indicates that there is no change to the parking arrangements, however, the existing garage would be removed and the parking area to the side of the property would be lost. The Council's Highway Engineer comments that the existing hardstanding on the frontage would be tight for two cars, although there is room to extend it if necessary.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H10 Areas of Special Residential Character T3 Parking

The application has been called in to committee by a Ward Member.

Planning History

Permission was refused in December 2013 (ref.13/03383) for a single storey side/rear extension on the following grounds:

"The proposed changes to the existing elevational design, which are a key characteristic of the properties No.1-15 Petts Wood Road, would be detrimental to the character and individual quality of this property and this row of semi-detached dwellings within the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character contrary to Policies BE1 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan."

Permission was subsequently refused in February 2014 (ref.13/04126) for a revised design for the single storey side/rear extension on the same grounds.

No appeals have been lodged to date.

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the ASRC and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

Page 152 Appendix II of Policy H10 states that ASRCs form an area that is well established, readily identifiable and coherent with the majority of the properties generally having the same readily identifiable characteristics. In this regard clause (i) states that developments likely to erode the individual quality and character of ASRCs will be resisted.

The row of properties between No.1 and No.15 at the junction with Ladywood Avenue consist of an intact and unaltered architectural style of alternating elevational designs. This commences with side entrance and ground and first floor roundel windows to the front elevations to Nos.1 and 3, with Nos.5 and 7 having front entrances that are linear and recessed with open porches. This alternates in pairs of semis to Nos.13 and 15.

No objections were previously seen to the overall size and scale of the extension, nor to its impact on neighbouring properties, but the alterations to the elevational design and their impact upon the ASRC were considered to be of particular concern. The proposals previously sought to remove the ground floor roundel window and replace it with a front door flush with the front building line, however, this window is now to remain, and the front door would be moved to the front elevation of the side extension. The extension would also be set back 0.3m from the front elevation which gives a degree of subservience to the host dwelling.

It is considered that the revised proposals which retain the existing elevational treatment of the dwelling, and provide a subservient design to the extension, would sufficiently maintain the character and symmetry of this row of properties within the ASRC, and would not be harmful to residential amenity.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref(s) set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) western flank extension ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1 4 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason

Page 153 Application:14/00974/FULL6 Address: 1 Petts Wood Road Petts Wood Orpington BR5 1JT

Proposal: Single storey side/rear extension

4 2

82.7m 194

2a 2 12

82.9m TCB 82.9m

r 2

a 2

2 a 1 2 a 1 W

& 7 7

3 t

2 s

1 5 n

1 7 R o

r C

83.2m

D LB

a T El Sub St S R

H 1 E

S I

2 C

1 2

85 5

84.0m

1 1

O Friends O W

Meeting House 2

D 0 2 A

L 6

2 1:1,280 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n154d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.23

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

Application No : 14/01110/FULL6 Ward: Orpington

Address : 95 Kynaston Road Orpington BR5 4JY

OS Grid Ref: E: 546983 N: 166500

Applicant : Miss Samaris Huntington-Thresher Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Single storey rear extension

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for a single storey rear extension 3m in depth, with a height of 3.4m to ridge and 2.4m to eaves. Two velux windows are proposed on either side of the extension's pitched roof.

Location

The host property is a semi-detached single storey dwelling in Kynaston Road, Orpington. Kynaston Road is a residential area in which properties vary in terms of their architectural style and scale. There is a mix of single storey and two storey dwellings mainly semi-detached

Comments from Local Residents

No public representations have been received, and no statutory consultations were carried out.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be considered primarily with regard to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan. The main issues are the impact of the proposed rear extension on the amenities of adjoining properties, and the relationship with the host dwelling.

A recent certificate of lawfulness for the rear extension proposed in this planning application and alterations to the roof including a rear dormer was subject of a split decision. The roof alterations were found to be lawful, however the rear extension would not be permitted development since it adjoins a garage which does not form part of the original dwelling.

Page 155 Conclusions

The proposed extension projects 3m to the rear of the property and has a ridge height of 3.4m and 2.4m to the eaves, it will include a velux window to each roofslope. The extension is separated from the site boundaries by several metres to the north, and projects no further than the existing garage to the south. Along with the modest rearward projection and height, this means that there will be no adverse impact on the adjoining properties to either side.

The extension will be finished to match existing and will not be readily viewed from the public domain. There are no concerns regarding the design or relationship with the host dwelling.

In summary, the proposed complies with the relevant Unitary Development Plan policies and it is recommended that permission be granted.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC07 Materials as set out in application ACC07R Reason C07

Page 156 Application:14/01110/FULL6 Address: 95 Kynaston Road Orpington BR5 4JY

Proposal: Single storey rear extension

4 7

3 0

7 2

5 1

2 6

0 1

1 1

0 1

LB 2 R AMS 25 DE 1 N 0

R 0 O 3

AD 9 1 1

59.4m

8 15

23 1

1 4

62.0m 0

1 1 TCB

8 1

0 Surgery 3

7 1:1,160 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n157d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 4.24

Section ‘4’ - Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS

Application No : 14/00102/VAR Ward: Mottingham And Chislehurst North

Address : 192 Elmstead Lane Chislehurst BR7 5EN

OS Grid Ref: E: 542831 N: 171649

Applicant : Mr J Moyce Objections : YES

Description of Development:

Variation of conditions 1 and 3 of planning reference 08/03962 to allow use of the garage for the storage of private motor vehicles only, removing its assocaition with No.192 Elmstead Lane.

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Local Cycle Network London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds Local Distributor Roads Open Space Deficiency

Proposal

 Planning permission was granted under ref. 08/03962 for a detached garage at rear of 192 Elmstead Lane. This was approved subject to conditions. The current application seeks permission for the variation of conditions 1 and 3 of planning ref. 08/03962 to allow use of the garage for the storage of private motor vehicles only, removing its association with No.192 Elmstead Lane.  The application states that according to the Land Registry documents, the garage no longer forms part of the residential curtilage of No. 192 Elmstead Lane. The property was purchased by the current owners of No . 192 under this arrangement.  The application is seeking to vary conditions 1 and 3 of approval ref. 08/03962 so that the garage is still used for the storage of private motor vehicles only, but removing its association with No. 192 Elmstead Lane, and has suggested replacement conditions to this effect.

Page 159 Location

The application site is located to the rear of 192 Elmstead Lane and is accessed via a vehicular track to the rear of Nos. 162 - 194 Elmstead Lane. The application site hosts a single storey detached garage which was previously sited on land belonging to No .192 Elmstead Lane. The dwelling was subsequently sold to a new owner, but the land that the garage is sited on was retained by the previous owner of 192 Elmstead Lane.

Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

 strongly oppose the application;  restrictive covenants states no part of the land or building can be used for commercial use;  garage currently being used to store commercial materials which is unlawful;  the land should only be used and occupied for private dwellinghouses;  proposal would lead to gross loss of amenity for local residents;  access to the track is currently restricted to owners/occupiers using garages for domestic use;  users of the access track and garages are known to each other, therefore high degree of security;  loss of residential security;  should the garage be used by non-residents of the area, it could be used for a variety of activities including commercial storage or a workshop as it is currently being used for illegally;  access road could be used by vans / commercial vehicles, blocking access by legitimate domestic users;  increase in noise and disturbance to residents;  allowing this application would be contrary to Chapter 4 of the UDP;  allowing the application would set an unwanted precedent for similar severances of garages from residential properties.

Comments from Consultees

No technical objections raised by the Council Highway Engineer.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan

BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking

Planning History

Page 160 Permission was granted under ref. 08/01445 for single storey front extension and part one part two storey rear extension.

An amendment to this planning permission was then refused under ref. 08/02393. The amendment was for an increased rearward projection of the single storey rear extension from 3m on the southern side to 3.7m and was refused for the following reason:

The single storey rear extension, by reason of its height, bulk and excessive rearward projection would have a seriously detrimental effect on the visual amenities of No. 190 Elmstead Lane, which the occupants of that dwelling might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The refused amendment was taken to Appeal and allowed.

A Certificate of Lawfulness was refused for the erection of a detached garage at rear under ref. 08/02424.

Full planning permission was then granted for a retrospective application under ref. 08/03962 for a detached garage at rear. This was subject to a number of conditions:

1. The garage(s) hereby permitted shall be used solely for the accommodation of private motor vehicles and for purposes incidental to the dwelling(s), and shall not be converted to living accommodation without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The storage of other vehicles (e.g. vans, lorries, etc) or use for other purposes would conflict with Policy T3 of the Unitary Development Plan, would be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, and conversion of the garage to living accommodation would deprive the property of adequate parking facilities.

2. Details of the external rendered surface of the garage hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing within 1 month of the date of this decision notice. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the garage is first used. Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and visual amenities of the area.

3. No business, trade or profession shall be carried out in the garage hereby approved which shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the private dwelling house. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Conclusions

Page 161 Members may consider that the main issues relating to the application are the effect that the proposal would have on the residential character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

At present, the owner of the garage is in breach of the planning conditions imposed on planning approval ref. 08/03962 by reason of having separated the garage from the residential curtilage of No.192 Elmstead Lane, and also using the garage for the storage of building materials. The current application is seeking to regularise this, however, in the meantime the garage remains in use as a storage facility for building materials. This was seen when the site visit was carried out, can be seen in the photographs from the site visit, and was confirmed by the agent when discussed following the site visit.

The agent has stated that the use of the garage will revert to storing private motor vehicles and shall not be used for business, trade or professional use once the application is granted.

Concerns have been raised by a large number of local residents with regard to the proposed variation of conditions at the garage, mainly that the garage will still not be used correctly and it will remain in use as a storage room for building materials, with vans and lorries visiting the garage which would in turn block the access track. However, Members will appreciate that this cannot be proven either way until the application is determined.

The garage is located within a residential area and when planning permission was granted for its replacement, this was done so on the basis that it would be linked with the residential dwelling and curtilage, and only used for the storage of private motor vehicles for 192 Elmstead Lane. Members will wish to consider whether the removal of the garage from the residential curtilage is considered unacceptable and whether it is likely to cause harm to the residential character of the area, or set a precedent for other sites in the Borough.

It is considered that if the current application is permitted, this would be likely to lead to a proliferation of stand-alone garages not linked to any particular residential dwelling, and as a result would have an impact upon parking for these residential properties, resulting in an increase in on-street parking and an impact upon the free flow of traffic, along with a marked change to the residential character of the area by reason of coming and goings associated with the use of the garage but unrelated with the nearby residential properties.

Members may consider that as a result of the proposal to sever the garage from the residential curtilage, there would be an increase in noise and activity through use of the garage that would be unrelated to the nearby residential dwellings, and this would therefore have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the nearby dwellings and the severance of the garage should be resisted.

It is also noted that when permission was originally granted for the replacement garage, condition 2 of permission ref. 08/03962 stated that:

Page 162 Details of the external rendered surface of the garage hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing within 1 month of the date of this decision notice. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the garage is first used.

To date, it does not appear that this condition has ever been complied with and therefore should permission be refused, Members may wish to refer the matter to Planning Investigations.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the files refs. 14/00102 and 08/03962 set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED

The reasons for refusal are:

1 The proposal to sever the garage from Number 192 Elmstead Lane would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of adjoining properties might reasonably expect to be able continue to enjoy by reason of increased noise and activity associated with the use of the garage but unrelated to the nearby residential dwellings, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 You are advised that the works being carried out at this property are unauthorised and you should submit a planning application to regularise these works within 14 days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to do so may result in enforcement action.

Page 163 Application:14/00102/VAR Address: 192 Elmstead Lane Chislehurst BR7 5EN

Proposal: Variation of conditions 1 and 3 of planning reference 08/03962 to allow use of the garage for the storage of private motor vehicles only,

removing its assocaition with No.192 Elmstead Lane.

1 3 4

0 2 1 1

101

1 0

11 2

6 1

2 7 1

Elmstead Baptist S Church DEN GAR

8 J 1 3

0 1 64.6m

5 2

E N

A 1 L 9

D 4 A E T

M 2 L 4 E E V 65.5m O R G

D 9 I 7 S 7

Y 2

A 1

8 W 4

W A L D E N A V E N

9 6

6 2

El Sub Sta

Allotment Gardens

70.3m

1 2 1:1,200 "This plan is provided to identify the location of thePage site a n164d should not be used to identify the extent of the application site" © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.25

Section ‘4’ - Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS

Application No : 14/00188/FULL6 Ward: Farnborough And Crofton

Address : 1 Brickfield Farm Gardens Orpington BR6 7TE

OS Grid Ref: E: 544078 N: 164545

Applicant : Mrs Kate Waters Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Two storey side extension

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding

Proposal

Members may recall that the application was previously withdrawn from the Plans Sub Committee agenda on 3rd April 2014 by the Chief Planner in order to seek clarification of the plans and the dimensions of the site.

Amended plans have now been received, which has resulted in an increase in width of the proposed side extension and consequently a reduction in separation between the flank elevation of the proposed extension and the property boundary. Neighbours have been re-notified, and the report has been amended accordingly.

 The proposal seeks permission for a two storey side extension.  The proposed extension will measure 2.35m, 8.46m in depth to match the depth of the host dwelling, and the eaves and ridge will also match the eaves and ridge of the host dwelling.  A separation of 0.3m would be retained between the property boundary and the flank elevation of the extension at the front, and a separation of 0.4m would be retained between the flank elevation and the property boundary towards the front of the extension.

Location

The application site is located on the corner of Brickfield Farm Gardens and State Farm Avenue, and hosts a two storey end of terrace property.

Page 165 Comments from Local Residents

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the revised plans and no representations were received.

Comments from Consultees

No internal consultations were considered necessary.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space

Planning History

There is no specific planning history related to the host dwelling itself other than the original planning approval for the construction of the property in 1983. Permission was granted under ref. 83/01124 for the erection of 47 one and two bedroom terraced houses.

Permission development rights were removed for all of the properties that were granted permission under this original planning approval.

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that the development would have on the character and spatial standards of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

The application site is located on the corner of Brickfield Farm Gardens and State Farm Avenue. Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan states in effect that for proposals of two or more storeys, a minimum separation of 1 metre is required between the property boundary and the flank elevation, for the full height and length of the flank elevation. Where higher standards of separation exist, such as corner properties, a greater separation may be required.

The revised plans and written information provided by the applicant, received 10th April 2014, state that the total width of the plot is 6.241 metres, and the total width of the proposed extension is 2.35 metres. The property boundary is the back edge of the pavement, excluding any part of the tarmac, therefore at the front of the proposed extension there will be a gap between the flank elevation of the extension and the property boundary of 30mm, and a gap of 40mm to the rear, this difference is due to the property boundary being on an angle.

Page 166 Members will note this separation of between 30mm and 40mm is contrary to Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan for any form of two storey development, notwithstanding that the site is a corner location and therefore this type of proposal would generally require a greater separation than the usual 1 metre.

The applicant and agent have provided details of properties in the locality that appear to have either been built up to the property boundary, or extended to within a metre of the property boundary. The examples provided can be seen on the file, with photographs that have been submitted by the applicant to illustrate the developments. Looking at the property history of the examples given, the majority of the properties referred to by the applicant appear to have been either built close to the boundary originally as there is no planning history at the sites, they are historic cases, or they have been approved at Appeal.

The most recent application for a two storey side extension was at 73 Crofton Lane, originally refused by the Council under ref. 03/02701 but subsequently allowed at Appeal.

Whilst an extension approved at 1 Fieldside Close in 2002 (ref. 01/03725) did involve a first floor side extension, it would appear that due to the angle of the property boundary and the relationship with the adjacent dwelling, a separation does still exist between the flank elevation and the property boundary.

As such Members may consider that whilst the character of the example development are similar to that being proposed, direct comparison cannot be drawn between the current application and the examples provided.

Planning policy has not been significantly altered in recent years and in fact Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan has been strengthened with regard to the requirement for at least 1 metre separation from the property boundary for two or more storey development. The estate which the application site is located on is an open-plan estate. Policy H9, and in particular the need for greater separation on corner properties, is considered important to protect the character and the spatial standards of an area, especially with sites such as this where the estate features many open plan corner locations characterised by green or gravel verges.

Members may therefore consider that the proposed two storey side extension will have a detrimental effect on the spatial standards of the open-plan estate, and would not provide a suitable side space to the flank boundary of the site which would result in a cramped appearance on the plot within the street scene. Whilst it is appreciated that the proposed extension would not lead to unrelated terracing or a cramped appearance in relation to adjacent properties, as the site is a corner location and there is no property located directly to the west of the application site, the spirit of Policy H9 is also enforced in order to protect the high spatial standards and level of visual amenity which characterise residential areas, with this particular housing estate being a fine example of an area of open character and high spatial standards.

In terms of the scale and design of the proposed extension, extensions should respect or complement those of the host dwelling and be compatible with

Page 167 development in the surrounding area, and space or gaps should be respected where these contribute to the character of the area. Members may therefore consider that the lack of any form of separation between the proposed extension and the property boundary, notwithstanding a minimal gap of 30-40mm, does not respect the existing relationship that the host dwelling has with the plot it is located on, and as a result the scale of the proposed extension may be considered excessive on this corner location.

In conclusion, Members may consider that the development in the manner proposed is not acceptable in that it would result in a significantly detrimental impact on the character of the area, a reduction in spatial standards and overdevelopment of the site, constituting an over dominant addition the host dwelling which lacks subservience, and does not comply with Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on the file ref. 14/00188 set out in the Planning History section above, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 14.02.2014 10.04.2014

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED

The reasons for refusal are:

1 The proposal does not comply with the Council's requirements for a suitable side space to be maintained to the flank boundary in respect to two storey development on corner sites, in the absence of which the proposal would constitute a cramped development, out of character with the street scene in general and contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed extension, by reason of the overall width and bulk would constitute an over dominant addition to the main dwelling which would seriously reduce the spatial standards in this locality and would result in an unsatisfactory departure from the existing open visual qualities of the estate layout, thereby detrimental to the visual amenities of the area generally, and contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 If permitted the development would be likely to set a pattern for similar undesirable development in the road, to the detriment of the openness of the area and contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Page 168 Application:14/00188/FULL6 Address: 1 Brickfield Farm Gardens Orpington BR6 7TE

Proposal: Two storey side extension

A SE

V F LO E IE

LDSID C

N E

E 2 7

1 9

2 1

1 0

8 1 9

4 2

1 a 6 St ub

l S 6 E 2

2 S 3 N DE AR

RMG

A 2

D F 6 2 EL 7 KFI 2

RIC 2

B 2 5

4 4

2 0 3 9 4

7 3

103.7m

3 1

1:660

Y "This plan is provided to identify the locatio nW oAf thePage site a n169d GH should not be used to identify the extenOtU of the application site" OR © Crown copyright and database rights 2N0B13. Ordnance Survey 100017661. FAR This page is left intentionally blank Agenda Item 5.1

Report No. London Borough of Bromley DRR14/050 PART ONE - PUBLIC

Decision Maker: PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3

Date: Thursday 1 May 2014 Decision Type: Non Urgent Non-Executive Non-Key

Title: TREESWAY, LODGE ROAD, BR1 3ND

Contact Officer: Philip Spiteri, Planning Enforcement Officer Tel: 020 8461 7751 E-mail: [email protected]

Chief Officer: Chief Planner

Ward: Plaistow and Sundridge;

1. Reason for report

Following complaints that the development permitted under DC/13/00074/FULL6 was not being carried out in accordance with the approved submitted plans. As a result of these complaints the premises was visited on 9th August 2013 by the planning enforcement officer, at this time the construction appeared to be following the plans for the submitted application, further complaints were received and a further visit made on 23rd October 2013 where it was established that a number of changes had been made which included the window configuration on the roof on the second floor.

The complainant also alleged the side space between the building and Blackthorns was substantially less than shown on the approved. Further visits have been made and other alterations including the addition of three roof lights windows to the roof have been made none of which were shown on the approved plans. The most recent being on the Wednesday 26th March 2014.

______

2. RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 That Members recommend enforcement action to ensure that the unauthorised changes to the approved submitted plans DC/13/00074/FULL6 be removed and only those changes shown in the said plans be implemented in order to deal with the issues raised in the grounds for refusal under DC/13/03887/FULL6.

1 Page 171 Corporate Policy

1. Policy Status: Not Applicable

2. BBB Priority: Quality Environment ______

Financial

1. Cost of proposal: Not Applicable:

2. Ongoing costs: Not Applicable: 3. Budget head/performance centre:

4. Total current budget for this head: £

5. Source of funding: ______

Staff

1. Number of staff (current and additional):

2. If from existing staff resources, number of staff hours: ______

Legal

1. Legal Requirement: None:

2. Call-in: Not Applicable: ______

Customer Impact

1. Estimated number of users/beneficiaries (current and projected): ______

Ward Councillor Views

1. Have Ward Councillors been asked for comments? No

2. Summary of Ward Councillors comments:

2 Page 172 3. COMMENTARY

3.1 The site is a detached dwelling house located on the East side of Lodge Road .The surrounding locality is predominantly residential in nature, characterised by detached dwellings set back from the highway by substantial front gardens with many mature trees which gives a semi –rural appearance. From the road the land rises to the East and to the West; houses to each side of the road are in an elevated position.

3.2 The road is unadopted and the land to the rear is designated as Metropolitan Open Land .The access road to Sundridge Park Manor is to the rear of the site.

3.3 On 23rd October 2013 following a complaint regarding the installation of six adjoined skylight windows on the second floor roof adjacent to Blackthorns, there was an additional separate skylight window to this elevation, there was a similar configuration of windows on the other side of the building adjacent to the The Jimmies. The approved plans show 3 skylight windows to each side. The side space between the new extension and the boundary with Blackthorns was also less than shown on the approved submitted plans.

3.4 Further visits were made to the site these identified additional changes to the submitted plans namely a further roof light on the inward facing roof slope on the second floor and three elevated roof lights to the flat roof on the second floor. There were also alterations to the approved garage design.

3.5 A planning Application was submitted to show the changes made to the original approved submitted application ref DC/13/03887/FULL6.

3.6 This application was refused at Plans Sub Committee on 13th March 2014. The reasons for refusal were:

1. The development gives rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy and amenity to the occupiers of adjacent properties thus contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The protruding roof lights, by reason of their size design and projection above the ridge line, result in a discordant feature to the dwelling and are detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed revisions to the approved garage design would result in a bulky feature to this front extension and an undesirable feature in the street scene detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3.7 The applicant was further advised that the Council had noted that the drawings accompanying the application do not accurately represent the Southwest elevation, as built, to the extent that a door and window to the ground floor have not been formed and have been replaced by air conditioning units which are subject to a separate retrospective application ref DC/14/00682 FULL 6.

3.8 As a result of a further complaint regarding roof lights being installed in the roof of the side extension adjacent to Blackthorns the site was visited on 26th March 2014 and four roof lights had been installed on the roof of the extension adjacent to Blackthorns , the owner advised these were in place of the two windows and a door shown on the original submitted approved plans DC/13/00074/FULL6 .A further three roof lights had been inserted in the roof of the side extension adjacent to the Jimmies. These were not shown on any Planning application.

3 Page 173

Non-Applicable Sections: POLICY IMPLICATIONS, FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS, PERSONNEL IMPLICATION Background Documents: NA (Access via Contact Officer)

4 Page 174 Agenda Item 9

Document is Restricted

Page 175 This page is left intentionally blank